The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in PubMed. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication. If any grants are referenced by the publication, they will be listed here as well.
A role for motor and somatosensory evoked potentials during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for patients without myelopathy: Analysis of 57 consecutive cases.
Risheng Xu; Eva K Ritzl; Mohammed Sait; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Timothy F Witham; Ziya L Gokaslan; Ali Bydon (Profiled Authors: Eva Ritzl; Timothy Witham; Ziya Gokaslan; Daniel Sciubba; Ali Bydon; Jean-Paul Wolinsky)
Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Surgical neurology international 2011;2():133.
BACKGROUND: Although the usage of combined motor and sensory intraoperative monitoring has been shown to improve the surgical outcome of patients with cervical myelopathy, the role of transcranial electric motor evoked potentials (tceMEP) used in conjunction with somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) in patients presenting with radiculopathy but without myelopathy has been less clear. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients (n = 57) with radiculopathy but without myelopathy, undergoing anterior cervical decompression and fusion at a single institution over the past 3 years, who had intraoperative monitoring with both tceMEPs and SSEPs. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (100%) patients presented with radiculopathy, 53 (93.0%) with mechanical neck pain, 35 (61.4%) with motor dysfunction, and 29 (50.9%) with sensory deficits. Intraoperatively, 3 (5.3%) patients experienced decreases in SSEP signal amplitudes and 4 (6.9%) had tceMEP signal changes. There were three instances where a change in neuromonitoring signal required intraoperative alteration of the surgical procedure: these were deemed clinically significant events/true positives. SSEP monitoring showed two false positives and two false negatives, whereas tceMEP monitoring only had one false positive and no false negatives. Thus, tceMEP monitoring exhibited higher sensitivity (33.3% vs. 100%), specificity (95.6% vs. 98.1%), positive predictive value (33.3% vs. 75.0%), negative predictive value (97.7% vs. 100%), and efficiency (91.7% vs. 98.2%) compared to SSEP monitoring alone. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we present a retrospective series of 57 patients where tceMEP/SSEP monitoring likely prevented irreversible neurologic damage. Though further prospective studies are needed, there may be a role for combined tceMEP/SSEP monitoring for patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression without myelopathy.
This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts and related grants with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.
Eric W Tan; Amit Jain; Hamid Hassanzadeh; Johnathan A Bernard; Mesfin A LemmaOrthopedics 2012;35(6):e917-21.
Klaus Novak; Georg Widhalm; Adauri Bueno de Camargo; Noel Perin; George Jallo; Engelbert Knosp; Vedran DeletisJournal of neurosurgery. Spine 2012;16(2):114-26.
Andres A Gonzalez; Dhiraj Jeyanandarajan; Chris Hansen; Gabriel Zada; Patrick C HsiehNeurosurgical focus 2009;27(4):E6.
Appears in this Publication
Author of this Publication