Effectiveness of intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials for predicting changes in the neurological status of patients with cervical spinal cord tumors in the early postoperative period

Klimov V.S.

Federal Neurosurgical Center, Novosibirsk, Russia

Kel’makov V.V.

Federal Center of Neurosurgery, Nemirovich-Danchenko Str., 132/1,Novosibirsk, Russia, 630087

Chishchina N.V.

Federal Center of Neurosurgery, Novosibirsk, Russia

Evsyukov A.V.

Federal Neurosurgical Center, Novosibirsk, Russia

Effectiveness of intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials for predicting changes in the neurological status of patients with cervical spinal cord tumors in the early postoperative period

Authors:

Klimov V.S., Kel’makov V.V., Chishchina N.V., Evsyukov A.V.

More about the authors

Journal: Burdenko's Journal of Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1): 22‑32

DOI: 10.17116/neiro201882122-32

Downloaded: 17

To cite this article:

Klimov VS, Kel’makov VV, Chishchina NV, Evsyukov AV. Effectiveness of intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials for predicting changes in the neurological status of patients with cervical spinal cord tumors in the early postoperative period. Burdenko's Journal of Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1):22‑32. (In Russ., In Engl.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/neiro201882122-32

Close metadata

Recommended articles:

Minimally invasive surgical treatment of extramedullary tumors at the level of craniovertebral junction: experience of the Burdenko Neurosurgical Center. Burdenko's Journal of Neurosurgery. 2024;(2):39-46

Aim. The study aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) for predicting changes in the neurological status of patients with cervical spinal cord tumors in the early postoperative period. Material and methods. The study included 74 patients with intradural cervical spinal cord tumors who were operated on using motor evoked potential monitoring in the period from 2013 to 2016. There were 29 (39%) males and 46 (61%) females. Group 1 included 26 (35%) patients with intramedullary tumors; group 2 included 48 (65%) patients with intradural extramedullary tumors. The neurological status was assessed by using a six-grade muscle power MRC scale; a modified McCormick scale was used to evaluate the functional status. Transcranial electrical stimulation of the precentral gyri was performed. Recording electrodes were located in the peripheral target muscles of the upper and lower limbs. Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and fentanyl was used. Results. In Group 1, MEPs decreased in 19 (73%) of 26 patients; MEPs remained unchanged in 7 (27%) patients. Among the patients with decreased MEPs, 14 (74%) patients had postoperative deterioration of the neurological status; 6 (32%) patients had a preoperative severe neurological deficit; 4 (21%) patients had no changes in the neurological status. The sensitivity and specificity of MEPs from the upper limb muscles were higher than those from the lower limb muscles. In Group 2, improvement of the neurological status occurred in all 48 patients. There was no case of a true positive decrease in the MEP amplitude. Conclusions. 1. Registration of MEPs is a highly sensitive and highly specific method for diagnosing corticospinal tract dysfunction in patients with intramedullary tumors of the cervical spinal cord. The sensitivity and specificity of MEPs recorded from the upper limbs are higher than those from the lower limb muscles. 2. The sensitivity of MEPs in patients with extramedullary intradural tumors was 0%, the diagnostic effectiveness of MEPs amounted to 86% from the upper limb muscles and 93% from the lower limb muscles. 3. When the MEP amplitude in patients with extra- and intramedullary tumors of the cervical spinal cord decreases, a change in the surgion’s approach may reduce or completely eliminate surgically-induced damage to the spinal cord.

Keywords:

cervical spinal cord

motor evoked potentials

intradural extramedullary tumors

intramedullary tumors

Authors:

Klimov V.S.

Federal Neurosurgical Center, Novosibirsk, Russia

Kel’makov V.V.

Federal Center of Neurosurgery, Nemirovich-Danchenko Str., 132/1,Novosibirsk, Russia, 630087

Chishchina N.V.

Federal Center of Neurosurgery, Novosibirsk, Russia

Evsyukov A.V.

Federal Neurosurgical Center, Novosibirsk, Russia

List of references:

Bruneau M, Fischer G, Mahla K, Brotchi J, Quiñones-Hinojosa A. Surgical management of intramedullary spinal cord tumors in adults. Schmidek and sweet operative neurosurgical techniques: indications, methods, and techniques. 2012;6.
Constantini S, Miller DC, Allen JC, Rorke LB, Freed D, Epstein FJ. Radical excision of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: surgical morbidity and long-term follow-up evaluation in 164 children and young adults. J. Neurosurg. 2000;93(2 Suppl):183-193.
Sharma M, Sonig A, Ambekar S, Nanda A. Discharge dispositions, complications, and costs of hospitalization in spinal cord tumor surgery: analysis of data from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2003—2010: clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2014;20:2:125-141.
Van Goethem JWM, Van den Hauwe L, Özsarlak Ö, De Schepper AMA, Parizel PM. Spinal tumors. European journal of radiology. 2004;50:2:159-176.
Angevine PD, Kellner C, Haque RM, McCormick PC. Surgical management of ventral intradural spinal lesions: clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2011;15:1:28-37.
Chamberlain MC, Tredway TL. Adult primary intradural spinal cord tumors: a review. Current neurology and neuroscience reports. 2011;11:3:320-328.
Beall DP, Googe DJ, Emery RL, Thompson DB, Campbell SE, Ly JQ, DeLone D, Smirniotopoulos J, Lisanti C, Currie TJ. Extramedullary intradural spinal tumors: a pictorial review. Current problems in diagnostic radiology. 2007;36:5:185-198.
Kushel’ YuV. Intramedullary tumors of the spinal cord. Part I. (epidemiology, diagnosis, principles of treatment). Neurosurgery. 2008;3:10. (In Russ.)
Isaacson SR. Radiation therapy and the management of intramedullary spinal cord tumors. J Neurooncol. 2000;47(3):231-238.
Sala F, Bricolo A, Faccioli F, Lanteri P, Gerosa M. Surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: the role of intraoperative (neurophysiological) monitoring. European Spine Journal. 2007;16:2:130-139.
Merton PA, Morton HB. Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject. Nature. 1980.
Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK, Burger PC, Jouvet A, Scheithauer BW, Kleihues P. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta neuropathologica. 2007;114:2:97-109.
Van der Ploeg RJO, Oosterhuis H, Reuvekamp J. Measuring muscle strength. Journal of neurology. 1984;231:4:200-203.
McCormick PC, Stein BM. Intramedullary tumors in adults. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America. 1990;1:3:609.
Epstein FJ, Farmer JP, Freed D. Adult intramedullary astrocytomas of the spinal cord. Journal of neurosurgery. 1992;77:3:355-359.
Jasper HH. The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. 1958;10:371-375.
Sridhar K, Ramamurthi R, Vasudevan MC, Ramamurthi B. Giant invasive spinal schwannomas: definition and surgical management. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2001;94:2:210-215.
Deletis V, Sala F. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2008;119:248-264.
Sala F, Palandri G, Basso E, Lanteri P, Deletis V, Faccioli F, Bricolo A. Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:6:1129-1143.
Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Lyon R, Zada G, Lamborn KR, Gupta N, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Weinstein PR. Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function. Neurosurgery. 2005;56:5:982-993.
Pelosi L, Lamb J, Grevitt M, Mehdian SMH, Webb JK, Blumhardt LD. Combined monitoring of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in orthopaedic spinal surgery. Clinical neurophysiology. 2002;113:7:1082-1091.
MacDonald DB. Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. Journal of clinical neurophysiology. 2002;19:5:416-429.
Costa P, Bruno A, Bonzanino M, Massaro F, Caruso L, Vincenzo I, Ciaramitaro P, Montalenti E. Somatosensory and motor-evoked potential monitoring during spine and spinal cord surgery. Spinal cord. 2007;45:1:86-91.
Peker S, Ozgen S, Ozek MM, Pamir MN. Surgical treatment of intramedullary spinal cord ependymomas: can outcome be predicted by tumor parameters? Clinical Spine Surgery. 2004;17:6:516-521.
Velayutham P, Rajshekhar V, Chacko AG, Babu SK. Influence of tumor location and other variables on predictive value of intraoperative myogenic motor-evoked potentials in spinal cord tumor surgery. World neurosurgery. 2016;92:264-272.
Burkova EA. Methods of intraoperative control and postoperative recovery of patients with intramedullary tumors. [dissertation]. M. 2015. (In Russ.) Dostupno po: http://arhiv.neurology.ru/professional/Disser_Burkova.pdf Ssylka aktivna na 24.05.2016
Korn A, Halevi D, Lidar Z, Biron T, Ekstein P, Constantini S. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during resection of intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumors: experience with 100 cases. Acta neurochirurgica. 2015;157:5:819-830.

Close metadata