• Spine J · Apr 2021

    Review Meta Analysis

    What is the predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for postoperative neurological deficit in cervical spine surgery?-a meta-analysis.

    • Rajiv P Reddy, Robert Chang, Brian P Rosario, Shreya Sudadi, Katherine M Anetakis, Jeffrey R Balzer, Donald J Crammond, Jeremy D Shaw, and Parthasarathy D Thirumala.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
    • Spine J. 2021 Apr 1; 21 (4): 555-570.

    Background ContextCervical decompression and fusion surgery remains a mainstay of treatment for a variety of cervical pathologies. Potential intraoperative injury to the spinal cord and nerve roots poses nontrivial risk for consequent postoperative neurologic deficits. Although neuromonitoring with intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) is often used in cervical spine surgery, its therapeutic value remains controversial.PurposeThe purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether significant SSEP changes can predict postoperative neurologic complications in cervical spine surgery. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the predictive power of SSEP changes in both anterior and posterior approaches.Study DesignThe present study was a meta-analysis of the literature from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify prospective/retrospective studies with outcomes of patients who underwent cervical spine surgeries with intraoperative SSEP monitoring.Patient SampleThe total cohort consisted of 7,747 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery with intraoperative SSEP monitoring.MethodsInclusion criteria for study selection were as follows: (1) prospective or retrospective cohort studies, (2) studies conducted in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery not due to aneurysm, tumor, or trauma with intraoperative SSEP monitoring, (3) studies that reported postoperative neurologic outcomes, (4) studies conducted with a sample size ≥20 patients, (5) studies with only adult patients ≥18 years of age, (6) studies published in English, (7) studies inclusive of an abstract.Outcome MeasuresThe sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and likelihood ratios of overall SSEP changes, reversible SSEP changes, irreversible SSEP changes, and SSEP loss for predicting postoperative neurological deficit were calculated.ResultsThe total rate of postoperative neurological deficits was 2.50% (194/7,747) and the total rate of SSEP changes was 7.36% (570/7,747). The incidence of postoperative neurological deficit in patients with intraoperative SSEP changes was 16.49% (94/570) while only 1.39% (100/7,177) in patients without. All significant intraoperative SSEP changes had a sensitivity of 46.0% and specificity of 96.7% with a DOR of 27.32. Reversible and irreversible SSEP changes had sensitivities of 17.7% and 37.1% and specificities of 97.5% and 99.5%, respectively. The DORs for reversible and irreversible SSEP changes were 9.01 and 167.90, respectively. SSEP loss had a DOR of 51.39, sensitivity of 17.3% and specificity 99.6%. In anterior procedures, SSEP changes had a DOR of 9.60, sensitivity of 34.2%, and specificity of 94.7%. In posterior procedures, SSEP changes had a DOR of 13.27, sensitivity of 42.6%, and specificity of 94.0%.ConclusionsSSEP monitoring is highly specific but weakly sensitive for postoperative neurological deficit following cervical spine surgery. The analysis found that patients with new postoperative neurological deficits were nearly 27 times more likely to have had significant intraoperative SSEP change. Loss of SSEP signals and irreversible SSEP changes seem to indicate a much higher risk of injury than reversible SSEP changes.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.