Spine · 2018
Evaluation of a Combination of Waveform Amplitude and Peak Latency in Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring.
Клинический случайОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kobayashi Kazuyoshi, Ando Kei, Shinjo Ryuichi, Ito Kenyu, Tsushima Mikito, Morozumi Masayoshi, Tanaka Satoshi, Machino Masaaki, Ota Kyotaro, Ishiguro Naoki, Imagama Shiro
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to investigate the significance of a change in latency in monitoring of transcranial muscle-action potential (Tc-MsEP) waveforms.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Tc-MsEP has become a common approach in spine surgery due to its sensitivity and importance in motor function. Many reports have defined the alarm point of Tc-MsEP waveform as a particular decrease in amplitude, but evaluation of the waveform latency has not attracted as much attention.
METHODS: The subjects were 70 patients who underwent spine surgery using intraoperative Tc-MsEP monitoring. The peak latency was defined as the period from stimulation until the waveform amplitude reached its peak. Relationships with postoperative paralysis were examined separately for latency delays of 5% or more and 10% or more, and in combination with a decrease in amplitude of 70% or more from baseline.
RESULTS: Acceptable baseline Tc-MsEP responses were obtained from 1225 of 1372 muscles in the extremities (89.3%). Seven of the 70 patients (10%) had postoperative paralysis. A decrease in intraoperative amplitude of 70% or more from baseline occurred in 25 cases, with sensitivity 100%, specificity 71%, false positive rate 29%, and positive predictive value (PPV) 28% for prediction of postoperative paralysis. Compared to baseline, 15 cases had a latency delay of 5% or more, which gave a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 87%, false positive rate of 0%, and PPV 47%, and 8 cases had a delay of 10% or more, which gave a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 97%, false positive rate of 3%, and PPV 75%. A combination of a decrease in amplitude of 70% or more from baseline and a delay in latency of 10% or more from baseline had a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 98%, and a false positive rate of 2%, and PPV 86%.
CONCLUSION: Combined use of latency and amplitude could lead to reduction of false positives and increase of PPV in Br(E)-MsEP monitoring.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to investigate the significance of a change in latency in monitoring of transcranial muscle-action potential (Tc-MsEP) waveforms.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Tc-MsEP has become a common approach in spine surgery due to its sensitivity and importance in motor function. Many reports have defined the alarm point of Tc-MsEP waveform as a particular decrease in amplitude, but evaluation of the waveform latency has not attracted as much attention.
METHODS: The subjects were 70 patients who underwent spine surgery using intraoperative Tc-MsEP monitoring. The peak latency was defined as the period from stimulation until the waveform amplitude reached its peak. Relationships with postoperative paralysis were examined separately for latency delays of 5% or more and 10% or more, and in combination with a decrease in amplitude of 70% or more from baseline.
RESULTS: Acceptable baseline Tc-MsEP responses were obtained from 1225 of 1372 muscles in the extremities (89.3%). Seven of the 70 patients (10%) had postoperative paralysis. A decrease in intraoperative amplitude of 70% or more from baseline occurred in 25 cases, with sensitivity 100%, specificity 71%, false positive rate 29%, and positive predictive value (PPV) 28% for prediction of postoperative paralysis. Compared to baseline, 15 cases had a latency delay of 5% or more, which gave a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 87%, false positive rate of 0%, and PPV 47%, and 8 cases had a delay of 10% or more, which gave a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 97%, false positive rate of 3%, and PPV 75%. A combination of a decrease in amplitude of 70% or more from baseline and a delay in latency of 10% or more from baseline had a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 98%, and a false positive rate of 2%, and PPV 86%.
CONCLUSION: Combined use of latency and amplitude could lead to reduction of false positives and increase of PPV in Br(E)-MsEP monitoring.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.