↓ Skip to main content

SEP Montage Variability Comparison during Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
SEP Montage Variability Comparison during Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Hanson, Athena Maria Lolis, Aleksandar Beric

Abstract

Intraoperative monitoring is performed to provide real-time assessment of the neural structures that can be at risk during spinal surgery. Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) are the most commonly used modality for intraoperative monitoring. SEP stability can be affected by many factors during the surgery. This study is a prospective review of SEP recordings obtained during intraoperative monitoring of instrumented spinal surgeries that were performed for chronic underlying neurologic and neuromuscular conditions, such as scoliosis, myelopathy, and spinal stenosis. We analyzed multiple montages at the baseline, and then followed their development throughout the procedure. Our intention was to examine the stability of the SEP recordings throughout the surgical procedure on multiple montages of cortical SEP recordings, with the goal of identifying the appropriate combination of the least number of montages that gives the highest yield of monitorable surgeries. Our study shows that it is necessary to have multiple montages for SEP recordings, as it reduces the number of non-monitorable cases, improves IOM reliability, and therefore could reduce false positives warnings to the surgeons. Out of all the typical montages available for use, our study has shown that the recording montage Cz-C4/Cz-C3 (Cz-Cc) is the most reliable and stable throughout the procedure and should be the preferred montage followed throughout the surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Librarian 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,399,830
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,180
of 11,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,203
of 351,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#31
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.