↓ Skip to main content

Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials during Spinal Deformity Corrections—Safety, Efficacy, Limitations, and the Role of a Checklist

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials during Spinal Deformity Corrections—Safety, Efficacy, Limitations, and the Role of a Checklist
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shankar Acharya, Nagendra Palukuri, Pravin Gupta, Manish Kohli

Abstract

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) has become a standard of care in spinal deformity surgeries to minimize the incidence of new onset neurological deficit. Stagnara wake up test and ankle clonus test are the oldest techniques described for spinal cord monitoring, but they cannot be solely relied upon as a neuromonitoring modality. Somatosensory evoked potentials monitor only dorsal tracts and give high false positive and negative alerts. Transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) monitor the more useful motor pathways. The purpose of our study was to report the safety, efficacy, limitations of TcMEPs in spine deformity surgeries, and the role of a checklist. Retrospective review of all spinal deformity surgeries performed with TcMEPs from 2011 to 2015. All patients were subjected to IONM by TcMEPs during the spinal deformity surgery. Patients were included in the study only if complete operative reports and neuromonitoring data and postoperative neurological data were available for review. An alert was defined as 80% or more decrement in the motor evoked potential amplitude, or increase in threshold of 100 V or more from baseline. The systemic and surgical causes of IONM alerts and the postoperative neurological status were recorded. In total, 61 patients underwent surgery for spinal deformities with TcMEPs. The average age was 12.6 years (6-36 years) and male:female ratio was 1:1.3. Diagnoses included idiopathic scoliosis (n = 35), congenital scoliosis (n = 13), congenital kyphosis (n = 7), congenital kyphoscoliosis (n = 4), post-infectious kyphosis (n = 1), and post-traumatic kyphosis (n = 1). The average kyphosis was 72° (45°-101°) and the average scoliosis was 84° (62°-128°). There were in total 33 alerts in 22 patients (36%). The most common causes were hypotension (n = 7), drug induced (n = 5), deformity correction (n = 5), osteotomies (n = 3), tachycardia (n = 1), screw placement (n = 2), and electrodes disconnection (n = 1). Reversal of the inciting event cause resulted in complete reversal of the alert in 90% of the times. Three patients showed persistent alerts, out of whom one had a positive wake up test and woke up with neurodeficit, which recovered over few weeks, while the other patients showed persistent alerts but woke up without any deficit. Sensitivity and specificity of TcMEP in deformity correction surgery were 100 and 96.6%, respectively, in our study. IONM alerts are frequent during spinal deformity surgery. In our study, more than 50% of the alerts were associated with anesthetic management. IONM with TcMEPs is a safe and effective monitoring technique and wake up test still remains a valuable tool in cases of a persistent alert.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 17 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,698,519
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#1,464
of 3,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#363,124
of 428,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,153 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 428,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.