header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

A 5 year review of timing and response to abnormal somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring during complex spinal surgery: does intervention by the surgeon influence outcome?

British Orthopaedic Association/Irish Orthopaedic Association Annual Congress (BOA/IOA)



Abstract

Introduction

Evidence suggests that intra-operative spinal cord monitoring is sensitive and specific for detecting potential neurological injury. However, little is known about surgeons' responses to trace changes and the resultant neurological outcome.

Objective

To examine the role of intra-operative somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring in the prevention of neurological injury, specifically sensitivity and specificity, and whether the abnormalities were reversible.

Methods

2953 consecutive complex spine operations (male 36% female 64%, median age 25yrs) prospectively performed using spinal cord monitoring at a single institution (2005–2009). All traces and neurophysiological events were prospectively recorded by the neurophysiology technician. All patients with a significant neurophysiology event were examined clinically by a neurologist, separate from the spinal surgery team. Significant trace abnormality was defined as a decrease in signal amplitude of 50% or a 10% increase in latency. Timing of trace abnormality, surgeon's response and prospective neurological outcome were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value were calculated. A Chi-squared test was performed to assess the impact of intervention on neurological outcome (p < 0.05).

Results

2953 operations involving SSEP monitoring were performed and 106 recorded a significant trace abnormality. This most often occurred during instrumentation and the most common reaction was adjustment of metalwork. SSEP monitoring had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 97.3%, PPV 24%, NPV 100%. There were 79 false positives and no false negatives in this series. Chi-squared test was not significant (p=0.18) suggesting that intervention might not affect neurological outcome in this cohort.

Conclusions

Triggering events are uncommon and the development of a persistent neurological deficit is rare with an incidence of 0.85% in this series of 2953 operations. In the majority of cases detection of a monitoring abnormality prompts a corrective reaction by the surgeon. Of those with an abnormal trace 76% were neurologically normal at follow up.