Optimizing the methodology for saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials for monitoring upper lumbar roots and femoral nerve during lumbar spine surgery: technical note

被引:0
作者
M. Ángeles Sánchez Roldán
Francisco Mora Granizo
Victoria Oflidis
Konstantinos Margetis
Maria J. Téllez
Sedat Ulkatan
Jun Kimura
机构
[1] Mount Sinai West Hospital,Department of Intraoperative Neurophysiology
[2] Mount Sinai West Hospital,Department of Neurosurgery
[3] University of Iowa Health Care,Emeritus Professor Department of Neurology
来源
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | 2022年 / 36卷
关键词
Saphenous nerve; Somatosensory evoked potentials; Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; Lumbar spine surgery; Methodology;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The demand for intraoperative monitoring (IOM) of lumbar spine surgeries has escalated to accommodate more challenging surgical approaches to prevent perioperative neurologic deficits. Identifying impending injury of individual lumbar roots can be done by assessing free-running EMG and by monitoring the integrity of sensory and motor fibers within the roots by eliciting somatosensory (SEP), and motor evoked potentials. However, the common nerves for eliciting lower limb SEP do not monitor the entire lumbar plexus, excluding fibers from L1 to L4 roots. We aimed to technically optimize the methodology for saphenous nerve SEP (Sap-SEP) proposed for monitoring upper lumbar roots in the operating room. In the first group, the saphenous nerve was consecutively stimulated in two different locations: proximal in the thigh and distal close to the tibia. In the second group, three different recording derivations (10–20 International system) to distal saphenous stimulation were tested. Distal stimulation yielded a higher Sap-SEP amplitude (mean ± SD) than proximal: 1.36 ± 0.9 µV versus 0.62 ± 0.6 µV, (p < 0.0001). Distal stimulation evoked either higher (73%) or similar (12%) Sap-SEP amplitude compared to proximal in most of the nerves. The recording derivation CPz–cCP showed the highest amplitude in 65% of the nerves, followed by CPz–Fz (24%). Distal stimulation for Sap-SEP has advantages over proximal stimulation, including simplicity, lack of movement and higher amplitude responses. The use of two derivations (CPz–cCP, CPz–Fz) optimizes Sap-SEP recording.
引用
收藏
页码:1079 / 1085
页数:6
相关论文
共 78 条
[11]  
Srivatsa N(2019)Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015 Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44 369-376
[12]  
Laratta JL(2014)Dipole orientation of receptive fields in the somatosensory cortex after stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve in humans J Clin Neurophysiol 31 236-240
[13]  
Ha A(2018)Multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) in anterior hip arthroscopic repair surgeries Cureus 10 1387-1393
[14]  
Shillingford JN(2016)Failure of intraoperative monitoring to detect postoperative neurologic deficits: a 25-year experience in 12,375 spinal surgeries Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41 360-367
[15]  
Makhni MC(1978)Early recognition of nerve disorders by near-nerve recording of sensory action potentials Muscle Nerve 1 1254-1260
[16]  
Lombardi JM(2014)Saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials: a novel technique to monitor the femoral nerve during transpsoas lumbar lateral interbody fusion Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39 891-7
[17]  
Thuet E(1992)Total intravenous anesthesia for improvement of intraoperative monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials during aneurysm surgery Neurosurgery 31 1611-1624
[18]  
Lehman RA(2017)Perioperative neurologic complications during spinal fusion surgery: incidence and trends Spine J 17 1880-1886
[19]  
Lenke LG(2010)Validity and reliability of intraoperative monitoring in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: a 23-year experience of 3436 surgical cases Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 undefined-undefined
[20]  
MacDonald DB(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined