Utility of intraoperative electromyography in placing C7 pedicle screws

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York; and
  • 2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

The C7 vertebral body is morphometrically unique; it represents the transition from the subaxial cervical spine to the upper thoracic spine. It has larger pedicles but relatively small lateral masses compared to other levels of the subaxial cervical spine. Although the biomechanical properties of C7 pedicle screws are superior to those of lateral mass screws, they are rarely placed due to increased risk of neurological injury. Although pedicle screw stimulation has been shown to be safe and effective in determining satisfactory screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine, there are few studies determining its utility in the cervical spine. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility, clinical reliability, and threshold characteristics of intraoperative evoked electromyographic (EMG) stimulation in determining satisfactory pedicle screw placement at C7.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed a prospectively collected data set. All adult patients who underwent posterior cervical decompression and fusion with placement of C7 pedicle screws at the authors’ institution between January 2015 and March 2019 were identified. Demographic, clinical, neurophysiological, operative, and radiographic data were gathered. All patients underwent postoperative CT scanning, and the position of C7 pedicle screws was compared to intraoperative neurophysiological data.

RESULTS

Fifty-one consecutive C7 pedicle screws were stimulated and recorded intraoperatively in 25 consecutive patients. Based on EMG findings, 1 patient underwent intraoperative repositioning of a C7 pedicle screw, and 1 underwent removal of a C7 pedicle screw. CT scans demonstrated ideal placement of the C7 pedicle screw in 40 of 43 instances in which EMG stimulation thresholds were > 15 mA. In the remaining 3 cases the trajectories were suboptimal but safe. When the screw stimulation thresholds were between 11 and 15 mA, 5 of 6 screws were suboptimal but safe, and in 1 instance was potentially dangerous. In instances in which the screw stimulated at thresholds ≤ 10 mA, all trajectories were potentially dangerous with neural compression.

CONCLUSIONS

Ideal C7 pedicle screw position strongly correlated with EMG stimulation thresholds > 15 mA. In instances, in which the screw stimulates at values between 11 and 15 mA, screw trajectory exploration is recommended. Screws with thresholds ≤ 10 mA should always be explored, and possibly repositioned or removed. In conjunction with other techniques, EMG threshold testing is a useful and safe modality in determining appropriate C7 pedicle screw placement.

ABBREVIATIONS CMAPs = compound muscle action potentials; EMG = electromyographic; OPLL = ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; VA = vertebral artery.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Yakov Gologorsky: Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY. yakov.gologorsky@mountsinai.org.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online January 31, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2019.11.SPINE191120.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

  • 1

    Abdullah KG, Nowacki AS, Steinmetz MP, Wang JC, Mroz TE: Factors affecting lateral mass screw placement at C-7. J Neurosurg Spine 14:405411, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    An HS, Gordin R, Renner K: Anatomic considerations for plate-screw fixation of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16 (10 Suppl):S548S551, 1991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Bose B, Wierzbowski LR, Sestokas AK: Neurophysiologic monitoring of spinal nerve root function during instrumented posterior lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:14441450, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Calancie B, Madsen P, Lebwohl N: Stimulus-evoked EMG monitoring during transpedicular lumbosacral spine instrumentation. Initial clinical results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:27802786, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Clifton W, Edwards S, Louie C, Dove C, Damon A, Nottmeier E, : Techniques and tips for freehand placement of C7 pedicle screws with respect to cervicothoracic constructs: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) [epub ahead of print], 2019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    de Blas G, Barrios C, Regidor I, Montes E, Burgos J, Pizá-Vallespir G, : Safe pedicle screw placement in thoracic scoliotic curves using t-EMG: stimulation threshold variability at concavity and convexity in apex segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E387E395, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Desai S, Sethi A, Ninh CC, Bartol S, Vaidya R: Pedicle screw fixation of the C7 vertebra using an anteroposterior fluoroscopic imaging technique. Eur Spine J 19:19531959, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Djurasovic M, Dimar JR II, Glassman SD, Edmonds HL, Carreon LY: A prospective analysis of intraoperative electromyographic monitoring of posterior cervical screw fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:515518, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Duffy MF, Phillips JH, Knapp DR, Herrera-Soto JA: Usefulness of electromyography compared to computed tomography scans in pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E43E48, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Ebraheim NA, Xu R, Stanescu S, Yeasting RA: Anatomic relationship of the cervical nerves to the lateral masses. Am J Orthop 28:3942, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V: Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. A selected survey of ABS members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:22312239, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, Middleton JW, Aarabi B, Arnold PM, : a clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: recommendations for patients with mild, moderate, and severe disease and nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression. Global Spine J 7 (3 Suppl):70S83S, 2017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Puno RM, Johnson JR, Shields CB, Linden RD: A prospective analysis of intraoperative electromyographic monitoring of pedicle screw placement with computed tomographic scan confirmation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:13751379, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Heller JG, Silcox DH III, Sutterlin CE III: Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:24422448, 1995

  • 15

    Holdefer RN, Heffez DS, Cohen BA: Utility of evoked EMG monitoring to improve bone screw placements in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E163E169, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Holland NR, Lukaczyk TA, Riley LH III, Kostuik JP: Higher electrical stimulus intensities are required to activate chronically compressed nerve roots. Implications for intraoperative electromyographic pedicle screw testing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:224227, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Joaquim AF, Mudo ML, Tan LA, Riew KD: Posterior subaxial cervical spine screw fixation: a review of techniques. Global Spine J 8:751760, 2018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC: Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:977982, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Kennamer BT, Arginteanu MS, Moore FM, Steinberger AA, Yao KC, Gologorsky Y: Complications of poor cervical alignment in patients undergoing posterior cervicothoracic laminectomy and fusion. World Neurosurg 122:e408e414, 2019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Lee GW, Kim HJ, Yeom JS, Uh JH, Park JH, Lee JH, : Feasibility study of free-hand technique for pedicle screw insertion at C7 without fluoroscopy-guidance. Asian Spine J 10:3845, 2016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Liu Y, Hu JH, Yu KY: Pedicle screw fixation for cervical spine instability: clinical efficacy and safety analysis. Chin Med J (Engl) 122:19851989, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Mikula AL, Williams SK, Anderson PA: The use of intraoperative triggered electromyography to detect misplaced pedicle screws: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 24:624638, 2016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Parker SL, Amin AG, Farber SH, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, : Ability of electromyographic monitoring to determine the presence of malpositioned pedicle screws in the lumbosacral spine: analysis of 2450 consecutively placed screws. J Neurosurg Spine 15:130135, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Raynor BL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Taylor BA, Padberg AM: Correlation between low triggered electromyographic thresholds and lumbar pedicle screw malposition: analysis of 4857 screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:26732678, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Regidor I, de Blas G, Barrios C, Burgos J, Montes E, García-Urquiza S, : Recording triggered EMG thresholds from axillary chest wall electrodes: a new refined technique for accurate upper thoracic (T2–T6) pedicle screw placement. Eur Spine J 20:16201625, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Rhee JM, Kraiwattanapong C, Hutton WC: A comparison of pedicle and lateral mass screw construct stiffnesses at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:E636E640, 2005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Kurd MF, Mead L, Millhouse PW, Kumar P, : Is it necessary to extend a multilevel posterior cervical decompression and fusion to the upper thoracic spine? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:18451849, 2016

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Toleikis JR, Skelly JP, Carlvin AO, Toleikis SC, Bernard TN, Burkus JK, : The usefulness of electrical stimulation for assessing pedicle screw placements. J Spinal Disord 13:283289, 2000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Welch WC, Rose RD, Balzer JR, Jacobs GB: Evaluation with evoked and spontaneous electromyography during lumbar instrumentation: a prospective study. J Neurosurg 87:397402, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Yuk FJ, Rasouli JJ, Arginteanu MS, Steinberger AA, Moore FM, Yao KC, : The case for T2 pedicle subtraction osteotomy in the surgical treatment of rigid cervicothoracic deformity. J Neurosurg Spine [epub ahead of print October 25, 2019. DOI: 10.3171/2019.7.SPINE19350]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 83 83 69
Full Text Views 41 41 38
PDF Downloads 47 47 35
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0