Acta neurochirurgica · 2023
Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ueberschaer Moritz, Breitkopf Katharina, Siller Sebastian, Katzendobler Sophie, Weller Jonathan, Greve Tobias, Zausinger Stefan, Tonn Joerg-Christian, Szelenyi Andrea
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors (imSCT), distortion of the anatomy challenges the visual identification of dorsal columns (DC) for midline myelotomy. Dorsal column mapping (DCM) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can identify DC neurophysiologically. We compare application and feasibility of both methods.
METHODS: Patients with surgically treated imSCT were prospectively included between 04/2017 and 06/2019. The anatomical midline (AM) was marked. SSEPs at the DC after stimulation of tibial/median nerve with an 8-channel DCM electrode and cortical SSEP phase reversal at C3/C4 after SCS using a bipolar concentric probe were recorded. Procedural and technical aspects were compared. Standardized neurological examinations were performed preoperatively, 1 week postoperatively and after more than 12 months.
RESULTS: The DCM electrode detected the midline in 9/13 patients with handling limitations in the remaining patients. SCS was applicable in all patients with determination of the midline in 9/13. If both recordings could be acquired (6/13), concordance was 100%. If baseline SSEPs were poor, both methods were limited. SCS was less time-consuming (p = 0.001), cheaper, and easier to handle. In 92% of cases, the AM and neurophysiologic midlines were concordant. After myelotomy, 3 patients experienced > 50% reduction in amplitude of SSEPs. Despite early postoperative worsening of DC function, long-term follow-up showed significant recovery and improvement in quality of life.
CONCLUSION: DCM and SCS may help confirm and correct the AM for myelotomy in imSCT, leading to a favorable long-term neurological outcome in this cohort. SCS evolved to be superior concerning applicability, cost-effectiveness, and time expenditure.
METHODS: Patients with surgically treated imSCT were prospectively included between 04/2017 and 06/2019. The anatomical midline (AM) was marked. SSEPs at the DC after stimulation of tibial/median nerve with an 8-channel DCM electrode and cortical SSEP phase reversal at C3/C4 after SCS using a bipolar concentric probe were recorded. Procedural and technical aspects were compared. Standardized neurological examinations were performed preoperatively, 1 week postoperatively and after more than 12 months.
RESULTS: The DCM electrode detected the midline in 9/13 patients with handling limitations in the remaining patients. SCS was applicable in all patients with determination of the midline in 9/13. If both recordings could be acquired (6/13), concordance was 100%. If baseline SSEPs were poor, both methods were limited. SCS was less time-consuming (p = 0.001), cheaper, and easier to handle. In 92% of cases, the AM and neurophysiologic midlines were concordant. After myelotomy, 3 patients experienced > 50% reduction in amplitude of SSEPs. Despite early postoperative worsening of DC function, long-term follow-up showed significant recovery and improvement in quality of life.
CONCLUSION: DCM and SCS may help confirm and correct the AM for myelotomy in imSCT, leading to a favorable long-term neurological outcome in this cohort. SCS evolved to be superior concerning applicability, cost-effectiveness, and time expenditure.