Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring of the Spine

Published on 17/03/2015 by admin

Last modified 17/03/2015

Print this page

This article have been viewed 1724 times

CHAPTER 14 Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring of the Spine

The primary objective in intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring is to identify and prevent the development of a new neurologic deficit or worsening of a preexisting neurologic injury in a patient who is undergoing surgery. The aim of most spinal cord monitoring is to prevent intraoperative injury that results in irreversible paraplegia or quadriplegia. Because a neurologic examination cannot be performed in an anesthetized patient, intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring is used to determine the patient’s neurologic status during surgery. By evaluating the responses that are produced by the patient’s nervous system to various stimulations, the integrity of that neural pathway can be monitored.

These recordings are started before surgery, referred to as baseline recordings, and continued throughout the surgery. Any significant changes or fluctuations from these baseline values are used to determine whether significant neurologic injury has occurred. In using this strategy, the patient’s own response serves as the control for the detection of any abnormalities that may occur during the surgery. The term significant change is used to refer to the degree of changes seen in the neurophysiologic recordings. Changes that are termed significant have been shown to correlate well with intraoperative injury to the nervous system.

It is also possible that some of these significant changes may arise from other changes in physiologic parameters, anesthetic parameters, or technical issues. It is the responsibility of the intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring team to determine whether or not the significant changes noted in the neurophysiologic responses are truly related to the surgical procedure at hand. The challenge to the intraoperative neurophysiologist and the monitoring team is to alert the surgeon of these changes as early as possible so that changes can be instituted to reverse the electrophysiologic changes and to avert neurologic catastrophe.

Key to the success of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring is a good understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the neurophysiologic tests being monitored. These limitations should be understood not only by the intraoperative neurophysiologist, but also by the anesthesiologist and surgeon. For seamless integration of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring into the intraoperative team, it is imperative that a good established working relationship eventually develops between the intraoperative neurophysiology team, anesthesiologist, and surgeon. This relationship allows for rapid communication between teams and a quick resolution of issues, optimizing the benefits of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring for the patient.

One of the first issues to address when planning for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring is to determine the types of neurophysiologic tests to perform on a particular patient undergoing surgery. This decision is made based on an understanding of the type of surgery the patient is to undergo, the types of intraoperative injuries that may occur, and the mechanisms of how these injuries occur in surgery. By planning ahead with these issues in mind, the team can also attempt to anticipate the type of changes that might be expected to occur and the risky periods during surgery when these changes would likely occur. Ideally, the team would prospectively plan for interventions to reduce intraoperative neurologic injury.

Intraoperative Monitoring of the Spinal Cord

Somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP) monitoring has been used for many years to monitor spinal function intraoperatively during various surgeries involving the spine, such as corrective surgery for scoliosis or other congenital deformities and removal of intraspinal tumors or arteriovenous malformations. SEP monitoring has been shown to reduce the incidence of neurologic damage in large studies of experienced monitoring teams.¹ SEPs monitor only sensory transmission through the dorsal column pathways, however; SEPs do not provide a direct measure of motor function. In addition, the dorsal columns receive their blood supply from the posterior spinal arteries, whereas the anterior spinal arteries supply the motor pathways. Ischemic damage to the spinal cord from the anterior spinal artery may be undetectable with SEP monitoring.^2,³

A significant change in SEP monitoring might mandate further assessment of the patient’s motor function by waking the patient up during surgery to evaluate leg and arm motor function (this has been called the “wake-up” test). The disadvantages of this strategy include the lack of real-time intraoperative motor function assessment and the anesthesia risks associated with performing the “wake-up” test. An alternative is monitoring of the motor pathway through the recording of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs).

MEPs are a more direct technique that evaluates the motor pathway. Monitoring has been previously performed by relying on stimulation of the spinal cord directly.⁴ Spinal cord stimulation can be done with the use of epidural electrodes inserted after a laminectomy has been performed or by percutaneous intraspinous needle electrodes. The epidural electrodes are invasive and often require placement by a skilled anesthesiologist. Percutaneous intraspinous needles are difficult to place accurately and may not achieve adequate or consistent stimulation of the spinal cord. In addition, there is the question of whether MEPs generated through spinal cord stimulation arise solely from propagation through the motor pathway or if multiple pathways are involved in their generation.^5,⁶ There are reports of MEP monitoring in which spinal cord stimulation resulted in no significant intraoperative changes despite postoperative neurologic motor deficits (so-called false-negative result).⁷ It is now believed that motor cortex stimulation with transcranial electrical stimulation provides a more reliable method for monitoring of the motor pathways. This technique is now routinely used in spinal cord monitoring together with SEPs.

Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Monitoring

The use of SEPs in intraoperative monitoring of complex spine surgeries began in the early 1970s.⁸ Although SEP monitoring evaluates primarily the integrity of the posterior columns, it is often used to give an overall assessment of the spinal cord based on the assumption that many intraoperative mechanisms of injury would affect the spinal cord diffusely. An example of such an injury is spine distraction during scoliosis surgery. In addition, ischemic injury may initially result in a more diffuse dysfunction of the spinal cord that could be detected by SEPs (Fig. 14–1). SEP responses are thought to pass through large fiber somatosensory pathways of the dorsal column and possibly through the anterior spinothalamic tract, and this may be another reason why anterior spinal artery ischemia could be detected using this technique.

FIGURE 14–1 Significant amplitude change in cortical response owing to ischemic etiology. Stack on the left shows leg cortical response, and stack on the right shows popliteal fossa response. Both were obtained after left posterior tibial stimulation. Responses are represented with baseline responses shown at the top of the stack and end of monitoring shown at the bottom of the stack. Decrease in leg cortical amplitude can be appreciated at point depicted by arrow. Popliteal fossa responses are intact during this time. There is a return of response by the end of surgery seen at the bottom of the stack. This change was attributed to ischemic change to cord with retractor placed over left iliac artery. Responses returned when retractor was adjusted away from artery.

Generators of Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Responses

The cortical response for the lower extremity is called the P37 potential. The generator of this response arises from the primary somatosensory cortex of the leg, which is located in the mesial parietal cortex. The cortical response for the upper extremity, which is generated from the primary somatosensory cortex of the hand, is called the N20 potential (Fig. 14–2). Two important characteristics of these waveforms are (1) amplitude, which is recorded in microvolts and determined by either a baseline-to-peak or a peak-to-trough measure of the waveform, and (2) latency, which is recorded in milliseconds and is the time interval from the stimulus to the occurrence of the potential. An amplitude change from the initial baseline measure to a decrease of more than 50% is often considered a significant change in SEP amplitudes.⁹

FIGURE 14–2 Typical morphology of cortical generators of median nerve and posterior tibial nerve somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP) waveforms are shown. Display time is different between two modalities. Median nerve SEP is shown in 5 msec per division display, and posterior tibial nerve SEP is shown in 10 msec per division display.

Significant latency changes in SEP monitoring consist of a 10% prolongation beyond the baseline latency value (Table 14–1).¹⁰ Although these deviations from the baseline measures are thought to be significant, they should be interpreted with caution, taking into account various factors, including the evolution of the changes (e.g., a trend toward worsening is an ominous sign) and other intraoperative factors such as length of the surgery, type of anesthetic agent, and temperature effects. Also, significant latency and amplitude changes can occur in isolation. It is quite common to see a significant amplitude change without any associated latency changes. The most significant change is a complete loss of the cortical potential.

TABLE 14–1 Significant Changes in Different Monitoring Modalities

Type of Study	Significant Changes	Highly Significant Changes
Somatosensory-evoked potentials	Amplitude <50%; latency >10%	Complete loss of amplitude
Motor-evoked potentials	Increase threshold voltage >50-100 V	Complete loss of amplitude
Pedicle screw stimulation	Current intensity <7-10 mA

Another measurement made in posterior tibial or peroneal nerve SEP monitoring is the popliteal fossa potential. This is a nerve action potential that is recorded as the impulses pass within the popliteal fossa in the peripheral nervous system. The reason for this measurement is to ensure that an adequate stimulus has been applied. If there is an absence of the popliteal fossa response in addition to an absence of the leg cortical (P37) response, it suggests that the changes seen are not a result of a lesion at the level of the spinal cord. In this case, the change may be technical (e.g., the stimulating needles may have dislodged) or may be seen when the leg is ischemic (e.g., with femoral artery catheterization during thoracoabdominal aneurysm surgery or with direct compression of the peripheral nerve) (Fig. 14–3).

FIGURE 14–3 Significant change in left N20 cortical amplitude owing to arm positioning and nonsignificant latency prolongation of all cortical responses owing to anesthetic effect. Top row of stacks shows popliteal fossa (PF) and leg cortical (P37) responses from posterior tibial stimulation first from left-side stimulation and then from right-side stimulation. Bottom row of stacks shows Erb point (EP) and arm cortical (N20) response from median nerve stimulation with left side shown first followed by right side. There is a decrease in left N20 amplitude. This is highlighted with rectangular box in figure. At this point, there is also loss of left EP response. This change was attributed to malpositioning of left arm. When left arm was repositioned, response returned to baseline. Also noticeable in all leg and arm cortical responses from left and right sides is mild prolongation of latencies in the stacks, but these latencies all return to baseline by end of surgery. These changes are likely from anesthetic effect because they are bilateral, affecting arm and leg responses in a spine operation, which was performed at L3-S1 level.

The other posterior tibial stimulation SEP response that can be monitored (besides the P37 response) is the P31/N34 complex, often termed the subcortical response because the generator for this response is at the level of medulla and midbrain. The benefit in recording these responses is that they are relatively more resistant to the effects of anesthesia compared with the cortical P37 response (see Fig. 14–3). The same is true for the subcortical potentials from median nerve stimulation (P14/N18) potential. In pediatric cases, the subcortical potentials may also be better formed and more easily monitored than cortical responses. Some of this effect may be the result of the variation of myelination in the younger age groups and the more significant effects of anesthetics on these patients. These differences from the adult morphology can persist into the early teenage years. Other factors affecting the responses include core body temperature changes. The core body temperature commonly decreases more than 1° C. The cooling affects the limbs more than the core body temperature, which can result in slowing of conduction.