Introduction of intraoperative neuromonitoring does not necessarily improve overall long-term outcome in elective aneurysm clipping

OBJECTIVE Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM), particularly of somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), evolved as standard of care in a variety of neurosurgical procedures. Case series report a positive impact of IOM for elective microsurgical clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (ECUIA), whereas systematic evaluation of its predictive value is lacking. Therefore, the authors analyzed the neurological outcome of patients undergoing ECUIA before and after IOM introduction to this procedure. METHODS The dates of inclusion in the study were 2007-2014. In this period, ECUIA procedures before (n = 136, NIOM-group; 2007-2010) and after introduction of IOM (n = 138, IOM-group; 2011-2014) were included. The cutoff value for SSEP/MEP abnormality was chosen as an amplitude reduction >= 50%. SSEP/MEP changes were correlated with neurological outcome. IOM-undetectable deficits (bulbar, vision, ataxia) were not included in risk stratification. RESULTS There was no significant difference in sex distribution, follow-up period, subarachnoid hemorrhage risk factors, aneurysm diameter, complexity, and location. Age was higher in the IOM-group (57 vs 54 years, p = 0.012). In the IOM group, there were 18 new postoperative deficits (13.0%, 5.8% permanent), 9 hemisyndromes, 2 comas, 4 bulbar symptoms, and 3 visual deficits. In the NIOM group there were 18 new deficits (13.2%; 7.3% permanent, including 7 hemisyndromes). The groups did not significantly differ in the number or nature of postoperative deficits, nor in their recovery rate. In the IOM group, SSEPs and MEPs were available in 99% of cases. Significant changes were noted in 18 cases, 4 of which exhibited postoperative hemisyndrome, and 1 suffered from prolonged comatose state (5 true-positive cases). Twelve patients showed no new detectable deficits (false positives), however 2 of these cases showed asymptomatic infarction. Five patients with new hemisyndrome and 1 comatose patient did not show significant SSEP/MEP alterations (false negatives). Overall sensitivity of SSEP/MEP monitoring was 45.5%, specificity 89.8%, positive predictive value 27.8%, and negative predictive value 95.0%. CONCLUSIONS The assumed positive impact of introducing SSEP/MEP monitoring on overall neurological outcome in ECUIA did not reach significance. This study suggests that from a medicolegal point of view, IOM is not stringently required in all neurovascular procedures. However, future studies should carefully address high-risk patients with complex procedures who might benefit more clearly from IOM than others.