• Neurodiagn J · Jun 2012

    Review

    Current trends in pedicle screw stimulation techniques: lumbosacral, thoracic, and cervical levels.

    • Michael R Isley, Xiao-Feng Zhang, Jeffrey R Balzer, and Ronald E Leppanen.
    • Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Department and Neurosciences Institute Orlando Regional Medical Center and Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children Orlando, Florida, USA. Michael.Isley@orlandohealth.com
    • Neurodiagn J. 2012 Jun 1; 52 (2): 100-75.

    AbstractUnequivocally, pedicle screw instrumentation has evolved as a primary construct for the treatment of both common and complex spinal disorders. However an inevitable and potentially major complication associated with this type of surgery is misplacement of a pedicle screw(s) which may result in neural and vascular complications, as well as impair the biomechanical stability of the spinal instrumentation resulting in loss of fixation. In light of these potential surgical complications, critical reviews of outcome data for treatment of chronic, low-back pain using pedicle screw instrumentation concluded that "pedicle screw fixation improves radiographically demonstrated fusion rates;" however the expense and complication rates for such constructs are considerable in light of the clinical benefit (Resnick et al. 2005a). Currently, neuromonitoring using free-run and evoked (triggered) electromyography (EMG) is widely used and advocated for safer and more accurate placement of pedicle screws during open instrumentation procedures, and more recently, guiding percutaneous placement (minimally invasive) where the pedicle cannot be easily inspected visually. The latter technique, evoked or triggered EMG when applied to pedicle screw instrumentation surgeries, has been referred to as the pedicle screw stimulation technique. As concluded in the Position Statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring (ASNM), multimodality neuromonitoring using free-run EMG and the pedicle screw stimulation technique was considered a practice option and not yet a standard of care (Leppanen 2005). Subsequently, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (AANS/CNS) Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves published their "Guidelines for the Performance of Fusion Procedures for Degenerative Disease of the Lumbar Spine" (Heary 2005, Resnick et al. 2005a, Resnick et al. 2005b). It was concluded that the "primary justification" of intraoperative neuromonitoring"... is the perception that the safety and efficacy of pedicle screw fixation are enhanced..." (Resnick et al. 2005b). However in summarizing a massive (over 1000 papers taken from the National Library of Medicine), contemporary, literature review spanning nearly a decade (1996 to 2003), this invited panel (Resnick et al. 2005b) recognized that the evidence-based documents contributing to the parts related to pedicle screw fixation and neuromonitoring were "... full of potential sources of error ..." and lacked appropriate, randomized, prospective studies for formulating rigid standards and guidelines. Nevertheless, current trends support the routine use and clinical utility of these neuromonitoring techniques. In particular free-run and triggered EMG have been well recognized in numerous publications for improving both the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw implantation. Currently, treatment with pedicle screw instrumentation routinely involves all levels of the spine - lumbosacral, thoracic, and cervical. Significant historical events, various neuromonitoring modalities, intraoperative alarm criteria, clinical efficacy, current trends, and caveats related to pedicle screw stimulation along the entire vertebral column will be reviewed.

      Pubmed     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…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

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