Spine · 1995
Efficacy of multimodality spinal cord monitoring during surgery for neuromuscular scoliosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Owen J H, Sponseller P D, Szymanski J, Hurdle M
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: This study determined the relative efficacy of somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials in monitoring spinal cord function during surgery for patients with idiopathic versus neuromuscular scoliosis.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with idiopathic versus neuromuscular scoliosis demonstrate significantly different somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials recorded during surgery.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ashkenaze et al (1993) and others have reported that cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials are unreliable when used to monitor spinal cord function in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. It was recommended that other neurophysiologic tests be used.
METHODS: Somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials were recorded from two groups of patients: those with idiopathic scoliosis and those with neuromuscular scoliosis. Somatosensory-evoked potentials were obtained before and during surgery. Motor-evoked potentials were obtained during surgery. Normal variability, as indicated from idiopathic scoliotic results, was compared with data obtained from patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. Motor-evoked potentials and somatosensory-evoked potentials were obtained sequentially during the duration of surgery.
RESULTS: Single-channel cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials demonstrated a 27% positive rate, which was consistent with results (28%) from Ashkenaze et al. The use of multiple recording sites for the somatosensory-evoked potentials and the addition of motor-evoked potential procedures indicated that a reliable response could be obtained in more than 96% of the patients. It also was found that cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials were more affected by anesthetic agents when recorded from patients with neuromuscular scoliosis compared with patients with idiopathic scoliosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-channel cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials demonstrated a high level of unreliability, which reduced their clinical effectiveness. However, by using multiple recording sites with the somatosensory-evoked potentials and by administering motor-evoked potential procedures, it was possible to monitor spinal cord function in neuromuscular patients and avoid postoperative neurologic deficits.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with idiopathic versus neuromuscular scoliosis demonstrate significantly different somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials recorded during surgery.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ashkenaze et al (1993) and others have reported that cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials are unreliable when used to monitor spinal cord function in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. It was recommended that other neurophysiologic tests be used.
METHODS: Somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials were recorded from two groups of patients: those with idiopathic scoliosis and those with neuromuscular scoliosis. Somatosensory-evoked potentials were obtained before and during surgery. Motor-evoked potentials were obtained during surgery. Normal variability, as indicated from idiopathic scoliotic results, was compared with data obtained from patients with neuromuscular scoliosis. Motor-evoked potentials and somatosensory-evoked potentials were obtained sequentially during the duration of surgery.
RESULTS: Single-channel cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials demonstrated a 27% positive rate, which was consistent with results (28%) from Ashkenaze et al. The use of multiple recording sites for the somatosensory-evoked potentials and the addition of motor-evoked potential procedures indicated that a reliable response could be obtained in more than 96% of the patients. It also was found that cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials were more affected by anesthetic agents when recorded from patients with neuromuscular scoliosis compared with patients with idiopathic scoliosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-channel cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials demonstrated a high level of unreliability, which reduced their clinical effectiveness. However, by using multiple recording sites with the somatosensory-evoked potentials and by administering motor-evoked potential procedures, it was possible to monitor spinal cord function in neuromuscular patients and avoid postoperative neurologic deficits.