Sign up & Download
Sign in

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery: a review.

by Andres A Gonzalez, Dhiraj Jeyanandarajan, Chris Hansen, Gabriel Zada, Patrick C Hsieh
Neurosurgical Focus (2009)

Abstract

Spinal surgery involves a wide spectrum of procedures during which the spinal cord, nerve roots, and key blood vessels are frequently placed at risk for injury. Neuromonitoring provides an opportunity to assess the functional integrity of susceptible neural elements during surgery. The methodology of obtaining and interpreting data from various neuromonitoring modalities-such as somatosensory evoked potentials, motor evoked potentials, spontaneous electromyography, and triggered electromyography-is reviewed in this report. Also discussed are the major benefits and limitations of each modality, as well as the strength of each alone and in combination with other modalities, with regard to its sensitivity, specificity, and overall value as a diagnostic tool. Finally, key clinical recommendations for the interpretation and step-wise decision-making process for intervention are discussed. Multimodality neuromonitoring relies on the strengths of different types of neurophysiological modalities to maximize the diagnostic efficacy in regard to sensitivity and specificity in the detection of impending neural injury. Thorough knowledge of the benefits and limitations of each modality helps in optimizing the diagnostic value of intraoperative monitoring during spinal procedures. As many spinal surgeries continue to evolve along a pathway of minimal invasiveness, it is quite likely that the value of neuromonitoring will only continue to become more prominent.

Cite this document (BETA)

Sign up today - FREE

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research. Learn more

  • All your research in one place
  • Add and import papers easily
  • Access it anywhere, anytime

Start using Mendeley in seconds!

Already have an account? Sign in

Readership Statistics

13 Readers on Mendeley
by Discipline
 
 
by Academic Status
 
23% Student (Postgraduate)
 
15% Other Professional
 
15% Assistant Professor
by Country
 
46% United States
 
15% United Kingdom
 
15% Germany