Xia Sanqiang,Qiu Junyin,Shi Benlong,et al.Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in Chiari malformation-associated scoliosis patients with or without syringomyelia[J].Journal of Clinical Pediatric Surgery,,17():659-663.
Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in Chiari malformation-associated scoliosis patients with or without syringomyelia
- Keywords:
- Chiari malformation; Scoliosis; Syringomyelia; Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
- Document code:
- A
- Abstract:
- Objective To compare the difference of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) in Chiari malformation-associated scoliosis (CMS) patients with or without syringomyelia and investigate the influence of syringomyelia on IONM in surgical correction of CMS. Methods A total of 73 CMS patients were retrospectively reviewed from July 2013 to May 2015. There were 34 boys and 39 girls with an average age of 20.6±8.9 years. The latency and amplitude of somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and transcranial electric motor evoked potentials (TCeMEPs) were compared between concave and convex sides and between CMS patients with and without syringomyelia. And the percentages of abnormal SSEPs were also compared between those with and without syringomyelia. Results The values of SSEPs and TCeMEPs were successfully obtained in 71 (97.3%) and 73 (100%) patients respectively. The percentages of abnormal SSEPs showed no different between those with and without syringomyelia (28.1% vs 35.7%, P=0.745). No significant difference existed between concave and convex sides in latency and amplitude of SSEPs and TCeMEPs (P>0.05). No significant difference existed between those with and without syringomyelia in terms of age, height, P37 and N50 latencies of SSEPs, latency and amplitude of TCeMEPs (P>0.05). Those with syringomyelia had higher Cobb angle (P=0.009) and lower SSEPs amplitude (P=0.003) as compared with counterparts without syringomyelia. Conclusion IONM showed no significant difference between concave and convex sides in CMS patients. And those with syringomyelia have higher Cobb angle and lower SSEPs amplitude than counterparts without syringomyelia.
References:
1. Zhu Z, Qiu Y, Wang B, et al. Abnormal spreading and subunit expression of junctional acetylcholine receptors of paraspinal muscles in scoliosis associated with syringomyelia[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2007,32(22):2449-2454. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181573d01. 2. Cheng JC, Guo X, Sher AH, et al. Correlation between curve severity, somatosensory evoked potentials, and magnetic resonance imaging in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1999,24(16):1679-1684. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199908150-00009. 3. Zhu Z, Yan H, Han X, et al. Radiological Features of Scoliosis in Chiari I Malformation Without Syringomyelia[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2016,41(5):E276-281. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001406. 4. Tubbs RS, Beckman J, Naftel RP, et al. Institutional experience with 500 cases of surgically treated pediatric Chiari malformation Type I[J]. J Neurosurg Pediatr, 2011,7(3):248-256. DOI: 10.3171/2010.12.PEDS10379. 5. Chau WW, Chu WC, Lam TP, et al. Anatomical Origin of Abnormal Somatosensory-Evoked Potential (SEP) in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis With Different Curve Severity and Correlation With Cerebellar Tonsillar Level Determined by MRI[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2016,41(10):E598-604. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001345. 6. Moncho D, Poca MA, Minoves T, et al. Brainstem auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials in relation to clinical and neuroimaging findings in Chiari type 1 malformation[J]. J Clin Neurophysiol, 2015,32(2):130-138. DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000141. 7. Ferré Masó A, Poca MA, de la Calzada, et al. Sleep disturbance: a forgotten syndrome in patients with Chiari I malformation[J]. Neurologia, 2014,29(5):294-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2011.01.008. 8. 邱勇. 脊柱侧弯伴发Chiari畸形或／和脊髓空洞的临床评估[J]. 中华小儿外科杂志, 2004,25(5):392-393. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3006.2004.05.002. 9. Morioka T, Kurita-Tashima S, Fujii K, et al. Somatosensory and spinal evoked potentials in patients with cervical syringomyelia[J]. Neurosurgery, 1992,30(2):218-222. DOI: 10.1227/00006123-199202000-00011. 10. Polly DW Jr, Rice K, Tamkus A. What Is the Frequency of Intraoperative Alerts During Pediatric Spinal Deformity Surgery Using Current Neuromonitoring Methodology? A Retrospective Study of 218 Surgical Procedures[J]. Neurodiagn J, 2016,56(1):17-31. DOI: 10.1080/21646821.2015.1119022. 11. Strike SA, Hassanzadeh H, Jain A, et al. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Pediatric and Adult Spine Deformity Surgery[J]. Clin Spine Surg, 2016. Epub. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000388. 12. Stetkarova I, Zamecnik J, Bocek V, et al. Electrophysiological and histological changes of paraspinal muscles in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis[J]. Eur Spine J, 2016. Epub. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4628-8. 13. 刘海雁, 朱泽章, 史本龙, 等. 体感诱发电位联合运动诱发电位在Chiari畸形伴脊柱侧凸后路矫形手术中的应用价值[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2016,(4):299-303. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-406X.2016.04.03. Liu XY, Zhu ZZ, Shi BL, et al. Use of somatosensory evoked potentials and transcranial electric motor evoked potentials in surgical correction of scoliosis secondary to Chiari malformation[J]. Chinese Journal of Spine and Spinal Cord, 2016, (4): 299-303. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-406X.2016.04.03. 14. Devlin VJ, Anderson PA, Schwartz DM, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: focus on cervical myelopathy and related issues[J]. Spine J, 2006, 6(6 Suppl): S212-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.04.022. 15. Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journée H, et al. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: a study of 145 patients[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2003, 28(10): 1043-1050. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000061995.75709.78. 16. Chiappa KH. Evoked Potentials in Clinical Medicine[M]. New York：Raven Press，1983.203-287. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198205133061904. 17. Chen Z, Qiu Y, Ma W, et al. Comparison of somatosensory evoked potentials between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and congenital scoliosis without neural axis abnormalities. Spine J. 2014,14(7):1095-1098. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.465. 18. Cheng JC, Guo X, Sher AH. Posterior tibial nerve somatosensory cortical evoked potentials in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1998,23(3):332-337. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199802010-00009. 19. Mahmoud M, Sadhasivam S, Salisbury S, et al. Susceptibility of transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials to varying targeted blood levels of dexmedetomidine during spine surgery[J]. Anesthesiology, 2010,112(6):1364-1373. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181d74f55. 20. Ashkenaze D, Mudiyam R, Boachie-Adjei O, et al. Efficacy of spinal cord monitoring in neuromuscular scoliosis [J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1993, 18(12): 1627-1633. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199309000-00010. 21. Hammett TC, Boreham B, Quraishi NA, et al. Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring during the surgical correction of scoliosis due to cerebral palsy and other neuromuscular disorders[J]. Eur Spine J, 2013, 22(Suppl 1): S38-41. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2652-x. 22. Hsu B, Cree AK, Lagopoulos J, et al. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials combined with response recording through compound muscle action potential as the sole modality of spinal cord monitoring in spinal deformity surgery[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2008, 33(10): 1100-1106. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818af6ff.