Neurology India
Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 371  
 Home | Login 
  About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact  
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (562 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 »  Materials and Me...
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed291    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded18    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 65  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 75-79

Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in scoliosis surgery: A two-year prospective analysis in a single centre


Department of Orthopaedics, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Viswa Vidhyapeetam, Kerala, India

Date of Web Publication12-Jan-2017

Correspondence Address:
R Krishnakumar
Department of Orthopaedics, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Viswa Vidhyapeetam, Cochin, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.198189

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Aim: The present study is a prospective analysis of neuromonitoring [somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) and transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEP)] in consecutive scoliosis surgeries done at a tertiary care spine centre.
Materials and Methods: Prospective analysis was performed on 52 consecutive patients undergoing scoliosis correction from 2013 to 2015. SSEPs were obtained by stimulating the median and tibial nerves with stimulus intensity level 20–25 mA. TcMEPs were recorded bilaterally from abductor pollicis brevis, biceps, and deltoid for the upper limb, and from tibialis anterior, quadriceps, gastrocnemius, and abductor hallucis for the lower limb. Stimulation was given in the form of a high voltage (300–400 V) stimulus. An “alert” was defined as reduction in the amplitude of at least 50% for SSEP and at least 65% for TcMEP compared to the baseline recordings and an increase in the latency by more than 10%.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 14.6 years (7-33 years). Thirty-nine of the patients were females and 13 were males. Baseline values in neuromuscular scoliosis were low compared to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). There were no false negative incidents. False positive cases were due to low blood pressure and malfunctioning of the leads.
Conclusion: Use of upper limb leads could help in identifying malposition or malfunctioning of leads to eliminate false positive results. Combined multimodal intraoperative monitoring helps in increasing the safety in scoliosis corrective surgeries with a high sensitivity and specificity. Baseline values in neuromuscular scoliosis patients are possibly lower than idiopathic scoliosis patients. Intraoperative variations must be interpreted with caution.


Keywords: Intraoperative neuromonitoring, scoliosis, somatosensory evoked potentials, transcranial motor evoked potentials
Key Messages:

  • Combined multimodal intraoperative monitoring helps in increasing the safety factor in scoliosis corrective surgeries with a high sensitivity and specificity.
  • Baseline values in neuromuscular scoliosis patients are possibly lower than idiopathic scoliosis patients and intraoperative variations must be interpreted with caution.
  • There should be a good collaboration between the spine surgeon, neurologist/neurophysiologist, technicians and anaesthesiologist to accurately interpret the results of intraoperative neuromonitoring recordings, and thus ultimately derive maximum benefit for the patient.


How to cite this article:
Krishnakumar R, Srivatsa N. Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in scoliosis surgery: A two-year prospective analysis in a single centre. Neurol India 2017;65:75-9

How to cite this URL:
Krishnakumar R, Srivatsa N. Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in scoliosis surgery: A two-year prospective analysis in a single centre. Neurol India [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Feb 23];65:75-9. Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2017/65/1/75/198189


The quest for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring techniques dates back to the early 1960s when Harrington [1] introduced instrumentation to allow for the correction of spinal column deformities. A retrospective analysis performed by the Scoliosis Research Society in 1974 found that from 1965 to 1971, neurologic complications occurred at a rate of 0.72%, with partial or irreversible injury occurring in 0.65% of the subjects in this patient cohort.[2] Deformity correction in scoliosis surgery is associated with an inherent risk of neurological complications as a result of injury to critical neural structures. A previous combined analysis by the Scoliosis Research Society and the EuroSpine in 1991 reported the results of 51000 surgical cases, and noted an overall injury occurrence of 0.55%.[3] Factors associated with a higher incidence of neurologic injury included combined anterior and posterior repair, neuromuscular scoliosis, and significant kyphosis.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] There are various ways by which the spinal cord can get injured. Distraction during deformity correction accounts for the highest risk of spinal cord injury. Direct trauma from surgical manipulation, damage to vascularity during surgical exploration, positional issues, and thermal injury during the use of cautery are some of the contributing factors to intraoperative neurological injuries. The effect of such insults represents a spectrum – at one end, function decreases for the duration of the insult, and at the other end of this spectrum is permanent neurological damage from which recovery is never possible. Between these extremes is a large range over which recovery can occur partially or fully. Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) helps in improving the safety of deformity correction surgery by providing a real-time assessment of neural function.

Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring was widely adopted for IONM in the 1980s. Tamaki and Yamane [7] and Nash et al.,[8] first reported its use in the late 1970s. An extensive review of the outcome for spinal cord monitoring in deformity surgery has been presented by Nuwer [9] resulting from a survey among the members of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS). The large survey included 97,586 spinal surgery cases. Of them, 51,263 (53%) were using SSEP for monitoring purposes. Neurological deficits occurred in 0.55% patients, and on analysing the monitored cases, the true positive findings in SSEP were obtained in 0.43% and false negative findings in 0.127% patients. SSEP aids in monitoring only the function of the ascending tracts; however, changes in the motor tracts go undetected.

Merton and Morton [10] revolutionized spinal cord monitoring in 1980 by demonstrating that single-pulse voltage applied transcranially could result in contralateral motor activity. This was the first time that corticospinal tract monitoring was made possible. Transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP), when used in conjunction with SSEP, gave a comprehensive picture of the neurological status. Routine utilization of TcMEP was recommended by Luk et al.,[11] following their experience with 30 cases where no false negative results were reported.

When used together, SSEP and TcMEP monitoring allow for a real time assessment of both ascending and descending tracts of the spinal cord, thereby decreasing the likelihood of an iatrogenic neurological injury. Langeloo et al.,[12] in their study analysing 145 cases during spinal deformity correction surgery, reported the advantage of using a combination of SSEP and TcMEP, over SSEP alone.

Our study analyses the efficacy of combined SSEP and TcMEP monitoring in patients undergoing scoliosis corrective surgery in a single centre in South India over a period of 2 years.


 » Materials and Methods Top


Approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional review committee. Evaluation of prospectively collected neuromonitoring data from 52 consecutively operated cases of scoliosis was done. Patients diagnosed with scoliosis and operated between August 2013 and July 2015 at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi were selected for the study. The diagnoses of the patients are summarized in [Table 1]. Exclusion criteria were congenital scoliosis, previous spine surgery, and abnormal preoperative neurological status.
Table 1: Clinical diagnoses of patients who underwent multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring during scoliosis corrective surgery

Click here to view


The mean age of the patients was 14.6 years (range 7-33 years). Thirty-nine of the patients were females and 13 were males. Demographic details of the cohort are summarized in [Table 2]. Preoperative neurological assessment was done in the outpatient department and recorded, and patients with an intact preoperative neurological status were included in the study. Radiographic data was obtained using X-ray, computed tomography (CT) scan, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Out of the 52 patients, 51 patients underwent posterior scoliosis correction and 1 patient had anterior scoliosis corrective surgery. All surgeries were single-stage procedures.
Table 2: Demographic distribution of the patient cohort

Click here to view


An established uniform total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) protocol was followed for all patients, based on the published literature,[13],[14],[15] which included induction with propofol and fentanyl, as well as maintenance with dexmedetomidine. Any change in the team of anesthetists and their practices did not influence the outcome of monitoring in any of the cases.

Monitoring for all cases was done by a trained and experienced team of neurophysiologists. The equipment used was Xltek Protektor 4.0 (Natus® Neurology). Recording and analysis was done using EPWorks 4.0 software (Natus Medical Incorporated®). Baseline recordings of SSEP and TcMEP were obtained as soon as the patient was anesthetized, after prone positioning, both intraoperatively and postoperatively.

SSEPs were obtained by stimulating the median and tibial nerves with the stimulus intensity level being. 20–25 mA. Cortical potentials were received via electrodes placed on standard locations over the skull vault,[16],[17],[18],[19] The locations were based upon references from the international literature.

TcMEPs were recorded bilaterally from abductor pollicis brevis, biceps, and deltoid for the upper limb, and tibialis anterior, quadriceps, gastrocnemius, and abductor hallucis for the lower limb. Stimulation was given in the form of a high voltage (300–400 V) stimulus through electrodes placed subcutaneously, overlying the motor cortex regions.

An “alert” was defined as a reduction in the amplitude of at least 50% for SSEP and at least 65% for TcMEP compared to the baseline recordings, and an increase in the latency by more than 10%.[16],[17] In case an alert was sounded, surgery was temporarily halted and intervention was done in the form of initially directing the anesthesiologist to check the body temperature, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation. The technicians checked the integrity of the monitoring circuit. Once signals returned to within normal limits without requiring reversal of any surgical maneuver, rest of the procedure was carried out as planned.

Analysis of the outpatient records and radiographic data was done to determine the eligibility of patients for inclusion in the study. IONM recordings, operative notes, and anesthesia records were then scrutinized. Baseline recordings of SSEP and TcMEP were noted, and intraoperative changes in the amplitude and latency of the potentials were analysed. Surgical and nonsurgical intervention done to reverse the changes in potentials were noted and clinical outcome was assessed postoperatively. Statistical analysis was done to determine the sensitivity and specificity of SSEP and TcMEP monitoring based on correlation with intraoperative events and postoperative clinical outcome. The definitions related to the sensitivity and specificity of the monitoring are along the lines of description by Hilibrand et al.,[20] and are detailed in [Table 3].
Table 3: Definitions related to sensitivity and specificity as utilized in this study

Click here to view



 » Results Top


The cohort in this study consisted of 39 females and 13 males, with a mean age of 14.6 years (range: 7-33 years). Baseline SSEP and MEP values were recordable in all the cases after anaesthesia was given. Out of a total of 52 patients, baseline values of SSEP and TcMEP recorded preoperatively demonstrated a lower baseline value of TcMEP in 4 patients, who had a preoperative diagnosis of neuromuscular scoliosis, as compared to the other groups. However, these 4 patients with neuromuscular scoliosis did not have any preoperative neurological deficits. In addition, none of the other patients had preoperative neurological deficits.

There were 5 cases (9.6%) of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), wherein the intraoperative recordings showed a reduction in the amplitude of TcMEP recording to less than 65%. Two of these cases also had a fall in the amplitude of SSEP by more than 50%. However, a time lag of 15 minutes was noticed for the drop to be recorded, compared to the TcMEP reading. Having met the criteria for an alert, surgery was temporarily halted in these cases. In 4 of the cases, the anesthetist checked the vital parameters of the patient. Hypotension was detected and suitable measures were taken to restore hemodynamic stability. This resulted in the evoked potential values returning to within normal limits after a few minutes.

In 1 patient, the TcMEP signal was lost intraoperatively from the lower limbs with normal recording seen in the upper limbs. The vital parameters of the patient were assessed and found to be normal. On checking for the integrity of the circuit, malfunctioning of the leads attached to the lower limbs was discovered. This was set right by the technician and resulted in immediate appearance of normal evoked potential recording from the limb. Hence, no reversal of any surgical maneuver was warranted and the procedure was carried out and completed as planned. None of these cases showed any significant drop in the evoked potential values during the remainder of the surgery. No significant SSEP alterations were noticed during the study. None of the patients had any fresh neurological deficits, therefore, these were classified as true positive cases.

There were no false negative or false positive cases. The rest of the 47 patients (90.38%) in the cohort did not show any changes in the evoked potential values intraoperatively that were significant enough to sound an alert. Postoperatively, their neurological status was intact; therefore, these cases were classified as true negatives, as outlined in [Table 4] and [Table 5].
Table 4: Statistical classification of the cases

Click here to view
Table 5: Sensitivity and specificity of somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potential recordings

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


With the advent of newer instrumentation and techniques that are useful in the correction of spinal cord deformity, there is also an increase in the complexity of disorders in pediatric and adult patients undergoing corrective surgeries. Thus, there is an ever-growing need for newer and improved spinal cord monitoring techniques to reduce the risk of iatrogenic neurological injuries.

The field of IONM has come a long way since 1970s when it was first started. The first modality for intraoperative monitoring was spinal cord evoked potential (SCEP) monitoring, which was introduced in Japan in 1972 by Tamaki et al.,[21],[8] and Kurokawa.[22] This method tested only the dorsal column integrity and motor pathways could not be tested.

The wake up test, developed by Stagnara and Vauzelle in 1973,[6] helped in identifying motor deficits. It involved allowing the patient to emerge from anesthesia and then assessment of motor function in the upper and lower limbs on command was performed. This test became extremely popular and is still widely used in centers across the world today. Although this test is 100% accurate in detecting gross motor movements when administered properly, the major limitation of this test is that it can detect injury only at a single point in time. A real-time assessment is not possible. The surgeon is, therefore, left with no information as to when exactly, or which maneuver, led to the injury. In addition, there are other inherent problems with the test such as difficulty in waking up the patient, accidental tracheal extubation, ensuring an adequate awakening of the patient to follow commands, and difficulties inherent in the comprehension of commands in an elderly age group or due to other problems. It also results in an increased operating time, as reversal of anesthesia, checking by operating room personnel if the patient is following commands, and re-induction of anaesthesia consumes time. However, the wake-up test can still serve to confirm the presence of an injury to the cord in the presence of significant loss of evoked potential signals. A major study conducted in German spine centres documents the use of the wake-up test as a monitoring modality for scoliosis surgeries.[23] In our study, we did not have to use the wake-up test even once for confirmatory purposes.

The discovery of intraoperative monitoring as being a quick and effective way of assessing injury to the spinal cord led to various evoked potentials monitorings protocols coming into the picture. Our study did not have any case wherein SSEP and TcMEP values were normal intraoperatively but the patient developed postoperative neurological deficits, i.e., a false negative result. Although SSEP monitoring has been shown to have a high false-negative rate,[24],[25] we were able to get a 100% sensitivity as well as specificity for SSEP. A possible advantage with our study was that it was a single-centre study with uniform protocol followed for all cases. This may not always be possible with multicentric studies. A major limitation of SSEP monitoring is that this modality can only monitor the ascending columns and no inference can be made regarding the integrity of motor nerve roots.

Monitoring of TcMEP began after Mertin and Morton demonstrated that monitoring of corticospinal tracts was also possible by transcranial stimulation leading to motor tract activity. Schwartz et al.,[16] have shown that TcMEP is extremely sensitive to spinal cord injury and detects impairment on an average of 5 minutes before the SSEP change appears. We can confirm this in our study wherein two cases had significant TcMEP changes but developed SSEP changes after a lag of 15 minutes, thus indicating that SSEP as a standalone monitoring procedure may not be as sensitive as is clinically required. Lee et al.,[26] demonstrated a 5.8% false positive rate. In our study, there were no patients who developed a significant alert intraoperatively that could not be reversed, and the patients awoke without a fresh onset neurological deficit, i.e., we did not find any false positive cases. Downside of TcMEP testing is the inability to use neuromuscular blocking agents, as well as the need for intermittent testing as repetitive movements would hamper surgery.

Through the use of upper limb leads, we were able to identify the isolated malfunction of lower limb leads. Thus, we wish to emphasize the fact that upper limb leads help to serve as controls and can demonstrate the integrity of the circuit. All 5 patients had a return of normal values without requiring surgical intervention and woke up without any neurological deficits.

A pertinent point regarding the importance of preoperative neurological status of the patient with respect to interpreting intraoperative changes in the neurophysiologic parameters was brought out by Pastorelli et al.,[27] and Patel et al.,[28] The rate of false positives was found to be as high as 13.8% in the former study. The patients in both these studies had an abnormality of the neurological system preoperatively, and the false positive alerts obtained intraoperatively demonstrated that the results must be interpreted with caution in such groups of patients because the neuromonitoring changes seen might likely be a result of the preexisting neurological abnormality.

Although varied reports are available in literature regarding the sensitivity and specificity of SSEP and TcMEP monitoring, multiple studies [11],[12],[25] have shown that the validity and reliability of intraoperative monitoring is increased by the combined use of SSEP and TcMEP recording. Thuet et al.,[29] were able to obtain a 99.6% sensitivity whereas Bhagat et al.,[30] obtained a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 99.3% with a multimodal monitoring approach. We have derived a 100% sensitivity and specificity for combined neuromonitoring in our studies, and we concur with the previously published literature that a multimodal IONM gives best results and should be used as a standard line of care in scoliosis corrective surgeries.


 » Conclusion Top


Our single center study effectively demonstrates that combined multimodal intraoperative monitoring helps in increasing the safety factor in scoliosis corrective surgeries with a high sensitivity and specificity. Baseline values in neuromuscular scoliosis patients are possibly lower than idiopathic scoliosis patients, and intraoperative variations must be interpreted with caution. Finally, there should be a good collaboration between the spine surgeon, neurologist/neurophysiologist, technicians, and anesthesiologist to accurately interpret the results of IONM recordings, and thus ultimately derive the maximum benefit for the patient.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
 » References Top

1.
Harrington PR. Treatment of scoliosis. Correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg 1962;44A:591-610.   Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
MacEwen GD, Bunnell WP, Sriram K. Acute neurological complications in the treatment of scoliosis. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:404-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Dawson EG, Sherman JE, Kanim LE, Nuwer MR. Spinal cord monitoring. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society and the European Spinal Deformity Society survey. Spine 1991;16(Suppl 8):S361-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Qiu Y, Wang S, Wang B, Yu Y, Zhu F, Zhu Z. Incidence and risk factors of neurological deficits of surgical correction for scoliosis: Analysis of 1373 cases at one Chinese institution. Spine 2008;33:519-26.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Coe JD, Arlet V, Donaldson W, Berven S, Hanson DS, Mudiyam R, et al. Complications in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the new millennium. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine 2006;31:345-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Vauzelle C, Stagnara P, Jouvinroux P. Functional monitoring of spinal cord activity during spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973;93:173-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Tamaki T, Yamane T. Proceedings: Clinical utilization of the evoked spinal cord action potential in spine and spinal cord surgery. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975;39:539.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Nash CL Jr, Lorig RA, Schatzinger LA, Brown RH. Spinal cord monitoring during operative treatment of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;126:100-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG, Kanim LE, Sherman JE. Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: Results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;96:6-11.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Merton PA, Morton HB. Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject. Nature 1980;285:227.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Luk KD, Hu Y, Wong YW, Cheung KM. Evaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Spine 2001;26:1772-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journee H, Slappendel R, de Kleuver M. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: A study of 145 patients. Spine 2003;28:1043-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Sloan TB, Heyer EJ. Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 2002;19:430-43.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bithal PK. Anaesthetic considerations for evoked potentials monitoring. J Neuroanaesthesiol Crit Care 2014;1:2-12.  Back to cited text no. 14
  Medknow Journal  
15.
Deiner S. Highlights of anesthetic considerations for intraoperative neuromonitoring. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2010;14:51-3.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:2440-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Kim DH, Zaremski J, Kwon B. Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 2007;32:3041-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK. Systems based algorithmic approach to intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. Semin Spine Surg 2002;14:136-45.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Deletis V. Intraoperative neurophysiology and methodologies used to monitor the functional integrity of the motor system. In: Deletis V, Shils JL, editors. Neurophysiology in neurosurgery: A modern intraoperative approach. New York: Academic Press; 2002. p. 25-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Hilibrand AS, Schwartz DM, Sethuraman V, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Comparison of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:1248-53.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Tamaki, T., Yamashita, T., Kobayashi, H., Hirayama, H. Spinal cord evoked potential after stimulation to the spinal cord (SCEP), spinal cord monitoring–basic data obtained from animal experimental studies. Jpn J Electroencephalogr Electromyogr. 1972;1:196   Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kurokawa, T. Spinal cord action potentials evoked by epidural stimulation of cord: A report of human and animal records. Jpn J Electroencephalogr Electromyogr. 1972;1:64–66   Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Delank KS, Delank HW, Konig DP, Popken F, Furderer S, Eysel P. Iatrogenic paraplegia in spinal surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005;125:33-41.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Calancie B, Harris W, Broton JG, Alexeeva N, Green BA. “Threshold-level” multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: Description of method and comparison to somatosensory- evoked potential monitoring. J Neurosurg 1998;88:457-70.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Noonan KJ, Walker T, Feinberg JR, Nagel M, Didelot W, Lindseth R. Factors related to false-versus true positive neuromonitoring changes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine 2002;27:825-30.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lee JY, Hilibrand AS, Lim MR, Zavatsky J, Zeiller S, Schwartz DM, et al. Characterization of neurophysiologic alerts during anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine 2006;31:1916-22.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Pastorelli F, Di Silvestre M, Vommaro F, Maredi E, Morigi A, Bacchin MR, et al. Intraoperative monitoring of somatosensory (SSEPs) and transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials (tce-MEPs) during surgical correction of neuromuscular scoliosis in patients with central or peripheral nervous system diseases. Eur Spine J 2015;24:931-6.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Patel AJ, Agadi S, Thomas JG, Schmidt RJ, Hwang SW, Fulkerson DH, et al. Neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring in children with Down syndrome. Childs Nerv Syst 2013;29:281-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Thuet ED, Winscher JC, Padberg AM, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Dobbs MB, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoperative monitoring in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: A 23-year experience of 3436 surgical cases. Spine 2010;35:1880-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Bhagat S, Durst A, Grover H, Blake J, Lutchman L, Rai AS, et al. An evaluation of multimodal spinal cord monitoring in scoliosis surgery: A single centre experience of 354 operations. Eur Spine J 2015;24:1399-407.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow