Neurophysiologic Monitoring of the Cervical Spine


Chapter Preview

  • Chapter Synopsis

  • This chapter discusses the application of various intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) techniques (also known as modalities) during cervical spine surgery, namely, somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs), transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials (TCeMEPs), direct epidural potentials, spontaneous electromyography (sEMG), triggered electromyography (tEMG), and train of four (TOF). Each modality is briefly discussed separately and in terms of technical and anesthetic considerations, to provide better understanding of how best to use IONM during anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery.

  • Important Points

  • Benefits of IONM:

    • Improved patient care

    • Reduced patient neurologic deficits

    • Reduced surgical morbidity and mortality

    Secondary benefits:

    • Effects of improved surgical guidance

    • Allowance of a more aggressive surgical approach by identification and monitoring of structures

    • Identification of physiologically important changes such as blood flow changes: brain ischemia, spinal ischemia, and peripheral ischemia

    • Identification of anesthetic effects such as burst suppression

    Goals of IONM:

    • Identification of significant changes in spinal function

    • Intervention and prevention of permanent neurologic damage

Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) is the application of a variety of electrophysiologic monitoring procedures during surgery to allow early warning and avoidance of injury to nervous system structures. Cervical spine surgery involves a wide variety of surgical procedures that place the spinal cord, nerve roots, and blood vessels at risk. IONM during cervical spine surgery has become common to evaluate spinal cord function. This chapter discusses the application of various IONM techniques (also known as modalities) during cervical spine surgery ( Box 11-1 ), namely, somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs), transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials (TCeMEPs), direct epidural potentials (D waves), spontaneous electromyography (sEMG), triggered electromyography (tEMG), and train of four (TOF). Each modality is briefly discussed separately and in terms of technical and anesthetic considerations, to provide better understanding of how best to use IONM during surgical procedures of the cervical spine.

BOX 11-1
Modalities for Surgical Procedures of the Cervical Spine

  • Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs)

  • Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials (TCeMEPs)

  • Epidural direct waves (D waves)

  • Spontaneous electromyography (sEMG)

  • Triggered electromyography (tEMG)

  • Train of four (TOF)

IONM plays a key role in minimizing the postoperative deficits during the various types of surgical procedures (neurosurgery, orthopedic, vascular). Dorsal (sensory) and ventral (motor) pathways can be monitored by IONM during cervical spine surgical procedures with real-time feedback to the surgeons.

Modalities are specific types of neurophysiologic tests that can be used for testing and evaluating specific neurologic and functional pathways during different types of surgical procedures. Ascending somatosensory pathways (dorsal columns) and descending motor pathways (ventral columns) are monitored and protected by using various modalities such as SSEPs, TCeMEPs, D waves, and EMG. Multimodality IONM, in general, can prevent or lower the risk of devastating neurologic deficits in a wide variety of situations that place neural structures at risk. Although these modalities all have advantages and disadvantages, they are, in combination, effective means for providing patient protection.

Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials

SSEPs have been used as monitoring tools during surgical procedures since the 1960s. SSEPs are the most widely used monitoring modality and are routinely used during brain, spinal, and peripheral surgical procedures. SSEPs are optimal for protection of the patient’s ascending sensory spinal pathways (dorsal column) during high-risk surgical procedures. These ascending dorsal column pathways mediate stereognosis, proprioception, tactile discrimination, vibration sensation, and form recognition.

Upper and lower extremity SSEP monitoring is usually performed during all surgical procedures of the cervical spine. Median nerve (C5 to T1 roots) and ulnar nerve (C8 to T1 roots) SSEPs are frequently performed in the upper extremities, whereas in the lower extremities, posterior tibial nerve (L4 to S2) and peroneal nerve (L4 to S1) SSEPs are typically performed. SSEPs are generated by a low-intensity (≈25 mA) electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves in the hands and feet ( Table 11-1 ). Recordings made at multiple locations along the sensory pathway (brachial plexus and popliteal fossa, brainstem, and somatosensory cortex) can determine the anatomic and functional integrity at different locations as the signal travels from the periphery to the cortex. SSEPs are also useful in detection of mechanical and ischemic changes in the peripheral nerves, posterior spinal cord, and cerebral cortex.

Table 11-1
Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Setup
Stimulus Parameters
Pulse Electric monopolar rectangular
Duration 100-300 μsec
Intensity 30-40 mA
Stimulation rate
Median
Tibial
2-8/sec
2-10/sec
Sweep
Median
Tibial
40 msec
60 msec
Averages 500-2000
Band-pass
Cortical
Spinal
Peripheral
1-30 to 250-3000 Hz
100-200 to 1000-3000 Hz
100-200 to 1000-3000 Hz

Recording Parameters: aEEG Guidelines
Median and Ulnar Posterior Tibial
+ +
CPc CPi CPi FPz
CPi Ref CPz FPz
C5s Ref FPz C5s
EPi Ref T12S Ref
PFd PFp

Electrical stimulation of nerves in upper and lower extremities produces major positive and negative deflections as signals travel along the somatosensory pathway. The negative potential (N20) is recorded from the somatosensory cortex at the scalp corresponding to upper extremity stimulation (median and ulnar nerves). Conversely, a positive potential (P37) is recorded from the somatosensory cortex at the scalp corresponding to lower extremity stimulation (posterior tibial and peroneal nerves) ( Fig. 11-1 ).

FIGURE 11-1, From left to right, Somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) data showing left median, right median, left posterior (post.) tibial, and right posterior (post.) tibial nerve SSEP responses. Cortical responses are C4′-Fpz, C3′-Fpz, Cz′-Fpz, C3′-C4′, and C4′-C3′. Subcortical responses are CV5-Fpz. Peripheral responses are Erb (brachial plexus) point (Erb). C3 ′, Placed at CP3; C4 ′, placed at CP4; Cz ′, placed at CPz; Cv5, placed at the fifth cervical spine; Lt., left; Rt., right.

Adequacy of stimulation, peripheral limb perfusion, and peripheral nerve compression can be monitored by a peripheral response recorded at the level of the brachial plexus (for the upper extremities) or the popliteal fossa (for the lower extremities). In SSEPs, peripheral and subcortical responses are less sensitive to anesthesia and are frequently used to differentiate SSEP monitoring changes resulting from anesthesia and surgical manipulation. The SSEP responses are transmitted by the fasciculus cuneatus (upper extremity) and the fasciculus gracilis (lower extremity). Therefore, the spinothalamic pathways for pain and temperature are not covered by SSEP monitoring. SSEP uses three orders of neurons. First order neurons carry the signal from the stimulation site, enter the spinal cord through the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ), and travel upward in the dorsal columns forming the fasciculus cuneatus (upper extremity) and the fasciculus gracilis (lower extremity). These fibers make the first synapse with the second order neurons at the nucleus cuneatus (upper extremity) and the nucleus gracilis (lower extremity) in the lower medulla. This is followed by decussation at the medial lemniscus and the making of another synapse, with third order neurons in the thalamus. The third order neurons travel to the somatosensory cortex and terminate in the postcentral or somatosensory gyrus.

Usually, any changes of 50% or more in amplitude or 10% or more in latency of SSEP responses are considered significant and must be reported to the surgeon. Such changes should prompt a search for an intervention to reverse the procedure to reduce the risk of permanent damage.

Advantages

Sensory pathways can be monitored continuously by SSEPs intraoperatively without interrupting the surgical procedure. SSEPs are very effective in monitoring the dorsal column pathways. This monitoring decreases the risk of any mechanical and ischemic changes to the dorsal column pathways, brainstem, brain, and peripheral nerves.

Disadvantages

Averaging of 200 to 300 signals is needed to perform SSEP monitoring in patients under anesthesia, to cancel out unwanted signals such as noise, electroencephalography, and EMG. This signal averaging requires approximately 2 to 3 minutes for each trace. The scope of SSEP monitoring is also limited in assessing spinal cord function, because SSEPs do not detect changes in descending motor pathways. However, in a few reported cases, SSEP responses were not changed but TCeMEP responses were lost. Multiple perisurgical factors affect SSEP responses such as anesthesia, blood pressure, ischemia, and temperature. Therefore, SSEP responses should be monitored only by personnel trained in IONM.

Transcranial Electrical Motor-Evoked Potentials

Since their discovery in the 1980s, TCeMEPs have emerged as extremely useful tools for activation and monitoring of the corticospinal tracts. Many research studies have proven that the evaluation of functional integrity of the descending corticospinal tracts by TCeMEPs during high-risk neurosurgical and orthopedic procedures makes a significant difference in the motor outcome of patients.

TCeMEPs assess in real time the function of motor pathways in the spinal cord and reduce the risk of paralysis. They also help in detecting ischemic changes in the motor cortex, spinal cord, and peripheral motor nerves. Since 2000, further research has refined the use of TCeMEP techniques during high-risk spinal procedures. The Stagnara wake-up test was the only way to assess the functional integrity of the motor pathways during spine operations before the introduction of TCeMEP monitoring. The Stagnara wake-up test involved waking patients up during surgical procedures and asking them to move their feet. This technique can be difficult in noncompliant patients (e.g., language issues, hearing impairment) and can also delay the surgical procedure. Although patients do not feel any pain and have no memory of the test postoperatively, this method does not give continuous feedback to the surgeon during critical surgical steps, and the surgeon must stop the procedure to perform the test.

When the Stagnara wake-up test result is positive and the patient cannot move one or both feet, the period between incurring the injury and performing the test may be prolonged. Because of this potential delay between the injury and the test, a risk exists of missing the critical period during which an intervention may have been performed to reverse the neurologic insult.

In the past, SSEPs comprised the only modality performed during spine procedures. The assumption was that any damage to the spinal cord would affect both ascending sensory and descending motor pathways in the spinal cord. In some reported cases, no change in SSEP data was noted, and the patient woke up with motor deficits. TCeMEPs are very sensitive in predicting postoperative motor deficits as compared with SSEPs. This difference may be related to the disparate blood supplies to the ventral and dorsal spinal cord. The blood supply for dorsal columns that supply SSEPs is through the posterior spinal artery. However, the anterior spinal artery is the major source of perfusion to the anterior and lateral corticospinal tracts. If the anterior spinal artery is compressed, it may result in loss of TCeMEP responses while leaving SSEPs unaffected. Intraoperative loss of muscle MEPs indicates some postoperative impairment of voluntary motor control with a specificity of approximately 90% and a sensitivity of 100%.

During spinal surgical procedure, an anode and a cathode are placed on the patient’s scalp. Multipulse electrical anodal stimulation transcranially through these electrodes transcranially results in activation of upper motor neurons. The signals are transmitted to lower motor neurons at anterior horn cells in the spinal cord that synapse with distal muscle fibers through the neuromuscular junction, with resulting compound muscle action potentials ( Fig. 11-2 ). The downward volley can be recorded over the spinal cord by placing an epidural electrode. These responses are generated by direct activation (direct or D waves) and indirect activation (indirect or I waves).

FIGURE 11-2, Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials (TCeMEPs). Left, Responses from muscles of the left (L) upper and lower extremity muscles. Right, Responses from muscles of the right (R) upper and lower extremity muscles. AH, Abductor hallucis; APB, abductor pollicis brevis; ADM, abductor digiti minimi; BR, brachioradialis; BICEP, biceps brachii; DELT, deltoid; EHB, extensor hallucis brevis; FCU, flexor carpi ulnaris; PL, peroneus longus; TA, tibialis anterior.

For TCeMEP stimulation, electrodes are placed at the C3 and C4 position or the C1 and C2 position. The recording electrodes are placed in all four extremities. Multiple stimulation and recording sites should be selected especially in patients in whom TCeMEPs are difficult to elicit, such as patients with myelopathy. Increasing the stimulation intensity results in spatial summation, whereas increasing the number of stimulation trains results in temporal summation. The stimulation rate is set between 200 and 500 Hz ( Table 11-2 ). The latency of responses in upper extremity muscles is earlier than in lower extremity muscles. TCeMEP responses are very sensitive to neuromuscular blocking agents and are somewhat sensitive to inhalational anesthetic agents and infused agents. Appropriate anesthetic technique must be used for adequate monitoring. The alarm criteria for TCeMEP consist of various factors, including all or none response, changes in signal morphology, changes in stimulation intensity, and changes in amplitude.

Table 11-2
Transcranial Electrical Motor-Evoked Potential Setup
Stimulus Parameters
Pulse Electric monopolar rectangular
Duration 50 μsec
Intensity 100-1000 V
Interstimulus interval (ISI) 1.1-9.0
Trains 1-9
Averages 1
Recording Parameters
Low cut 10 Hz
High cut 3000-10,000 Hz
Sweep 10 msec/Div
Gain 100 μV/Div
Reject Off
Upper extremity Delt, FCU, BR, APB, ADM
Lower extremity Quads, TA, MG, AH, EHB
ADM , Abductor digiti minimi ; AH, abductor hallucis; APB, abductor pollicis brevis; BR, brachioradialis; Delt, deltoid; EHB, extensor hallucis brevis; FCU, flexor carpi ulnaris; MG, medial gastrocnemius; Quads, quadriceps; TA, tibialis anterior.

Advantages

TCeMEP monitoring has multiple advantages during high-risk cervical spine procedures. TCeMEPs assess the function of voluntary motor pathways (corticospinal and motor tracts) of the spinal cord in real time and reduce the risk of paralysis. The pyramidal motor pathways can be evaluated in real time by TCeMEP monitoring. TCeMEPs record corticospinal tract information, thus allowing the neurophysiologist to evaluate the functional integrity of the descending motor tracts during high-risk portions of the procedure. TCeMEPs also help in detecting ischemic changes in the motor cortex, spinal cord, and peripheral motor nerves.

Disadvantages

TCeMEPs have some disadvantages, too. They are affected by a high level of anesthesia and by muscle relaxants. The ideal recommended anesthetic technique is total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) without any muscle relaxants when TCeMEP monitoring is performed. Another disadvantage of TCeMEP monitoring is that it is not very sensitive to damage to the nerve roots in the lumbosacral area. TCeMEP monitoring is also limited by its contraindication in patients with cochlear implants and deep brain stimulator implants. Any patient with a history of seizures also has a higher risk of a seizure episode related to transcranial stimulation. The benefits of TCeMEP monitoring must be weighed against all these limitations and contraindications. Even though this technique is generally safe, tongue laceration from forced contraction of the facial muscles is the most common complication reported. Tongue lacerations can easily be avoided by placing bite blocks before applying any motor stimulation.

Epidural Potentials (Direct or D Waves and Indirect or I Waves)

An epidural electrode is placed in the epidural space for recording MEPs directly from the spinal cord generated in response to single pulse stimulation ( Table 11-3 ). Direct and indirect activation of upper motor neurons results in transmission of a volley in the spinal cord. By placing an electrode in the epidural space over the cervical spinal cord, these responses can be recorded as single D waves and multiple I waves. D waves are produced by direct activation of the upper motor neurons, whereas indirect activation of upper motor neurons through multiple interneurons produces multiple I waves ( Fig. 11-3 ). Anesthetics have minimal effect on D waves, but they abolish I waves. Epidural recordings are recommended for all patients with intramedullary spinal cord tumors. The advantage of epidural recording is that surgeons do not have to stop the procedure for monitoring, and recordings can be done without any patient movement during tumor resection ( Table 11-4 ). Another benefit is that anesthetic inhalational agents and neuromuscular blocking agents have minimal effects on the recordings.

Table 11-3
Epidural and D-Wave Setup
Stimulus Parameters: FDA Guidelines
Pulse Electric monopolar rectangular
Duration 50 μsec
Intensity 100-400 V
Interstimulus interval (ISI) 1.1-9.0
Trains 1
Averages 1
Recording Parameters
Low cut 10 Hz
High cut 3000-10,000 Hz
Sweep 1-3 msec/Div
Gain 100 μV/Div
Reject Off
Epidural electrodes
FDA, Food and Drug Administration.

FIGURE 11-3, Epidural or D-wave responses. The upper level ( gray arrows ) displays D-wave responses above the surgical site (early latency). The upper level ( black arrow ) also displays D-wave responses below the surgical site (delayed latency). The lower level displays stack view summary of epidural responses for left and right cortical stimulation.

Table 11-4
D-Wave Alarm Criteria
Data from Deletis V: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. In McLone D, editor: Pediatric neurosurgery: surgery of the developing nervous system, ed 3, Philadelphia, 1999, Saunders, pp 1204-1213.
D-Wave Response TCeMEP Response Motor Status
No change Present Intact
30%-50% decrease Unilateral or bilateral loss Temporary postoperative motor deficit
>50% decrease Unilateral or bilateral loss Long-term postoperative motor deficit
Lost Lost Permanent deficit
TCeMEP, Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here