Utility of intraoperative neuromonitoring and outcomes of neurological complication in lower cervical and upper thoracic posterior-based three-column osteotomies for cervical deformity

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, New York University, New York, New York;
  • | 2 Department of Neurophysiology, University of California, San Francisco;
  • | 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco; and
  • | 4 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

For severe and rigid adult cervical deformity, posterior-based three-column osteotomies (3COs) are warranted, but neurological complications are relatively high with such procedures. The performance measures of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) during cervicothoracic 3CO have yet to be studied, and there remains a paucity of literature regarding the topic. Therefore, the authors of this study examined the performance of IONM in predicting new neurological weakness following lower cervical and upper thoracic 3CO. In addition, they report the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year outcomes of patients who experienced new postoperative weakness.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of a single surgeon’s experience from 2011 to 2018 with all patients who had undergone posterior-based 3CO in the lower cervical (C7) or upper thoracic (T1–4) spine. Medical and neuromonitoring records were independently reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients were included in the analysis, 38 of whom had undergone pedicle subtraction osteotomy and 18 of whom had undergone vertebral column resection. The mean age was 61.6 years, and 41.1% of the patients were male. Among the study cohort, 66.1% were myelopathic and 33.9% had preoperative weakness. Mean blood loss was 1565.0 ml, and length of surgery was 315.9 minutes. Preoperative and postoperative measures assessed were cervical sagittal vertical axis (6.5 and 3.8 cm, respectively; p < 0.001), cervical lordosis (2.3° and −6.7°, p = 0.042), and T1 slope (48.6° and 35.8°, p < 0.001). The complication rate was 49.0%, and the new neurological deficit rate was 17.9%. When stratifying by osteotomy level, there were significantly higher rates of neurological deficits at C7 and T1: C7 (37.5%), T1 (44.4%), T2 (16.7%), T3 (14.3%), and T4 (0.0%; p = 0.042). Most new neurological weakness was the nerve root pattern rather than the spinal cord pattern. Overall, there were 16 IONM changes at any threshold: 14 at 50%, 8 at 75%, and 13 if only counting patients who did not return to baseline (RTB). Performance measures for the various thresholds were accuracy (73.2% to 77.8%), positive predictive value (25.0% to 46.2%), negative predictive value (81.3% to 88.1%), sensitivity (18.2% to 54.5%), and specificity (77.8% to 86.7%). Sensitivity to detect a spinal cord pattern of weakness was 100% and 28.6% for a nerve root pattern of weakness. In patients with a new postoperative deficit, 22.2% were unchanged, 44.4% improved, and 33.3% had a RTB at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates are high following posterior 3CO for cervical deformity. 3CO at C7 and T1 has the highest rates of neurological deficit. Current IONM modalities have modest performance in predicting postoperative deficits, especially for nerve root neuropraxia. A large prospective multicenter study is warranted.

ABBREVIATIONS

3CO = three-column osteotomy; ACD = adult cervical deformity; BMI = body mass index; CL = cervical lordosis; cSVA = cervical sagittal vertical axis; EMG = electromyography; FN = false negative; FP = false positive; IONM = intraoperative neuromonitoring; LL = lumbar lordosis; MEP = motor evoked potential; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; PSO = pedicle subtraction osteotomy; SSEP = somatosensory evoked potential; TK = thoracic kyphosis; TN = true negative; TP = true positive; VCR = vertebral column resection.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Pierce KE, Alas H, Brown AE, et al. PROMIS physical health domain scores are related to cervical deformity severity. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2019;10(3):179183.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, et al. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(2):141159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Iyer S, Kim HJ, Bao H, et al. Cervical deformity patients have baseline swallowing dysfunction but surgery does not increase dysphagia at 3 months: results from a prospective cohort study. Global Spine J. 2019;9(5):532539.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Deviren V, Scheer JK, Ames CP. Technique of cervicothoracic junction pedicle subtraction osteotomy for cervical sagittal imbalance: report of 11 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(2):174181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Etame AB, Wang AC, Than KD, et al. Outcomes after surgery for cervical spine deformity: review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Soroceanu A, Smith JS, Lau D, et al. Establishing the minimum clinically important difference in Neck Disability Index and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores for adult cervical deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(4):441445.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Ames CP, Smith JS, Scheer JK, et al. A standardized nomenclature for cervical spine soft-tissue release and osteotomy for deformity correction: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(3):269278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Passias PG, Jalai CM, Lafage V, et al. Primary drivers of adult cervical deformity: prevalence, variations in presentation, and effect of surgical treatment strategies on early postoperative alignment. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(4):651659.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Virk S, Passias P, Lafage R, et al. Intraoperative alignment goals for distinctive sagittal morphotypes of severe cervical deformity to achieve optimal improvements in health-related quality of life measures. Spine J. 2020;20(8):12671275.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Etame AB, Than KD, Wang AC, et al. Surgical management of symptomatic cervical or cervicothoracic kyphosis due to ankylosing spondylitis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33(16):E559E564.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Smith JS, Ramchandran S, Lafage V, et al. Prospective multicenter assessment of early complication rates associated with adult cervical deformity surgery in 78 patients. Neurosurgery. 2016;79(3):378388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Lau D, Deviren V, Joshi RS, Ames CP. Comparison of perioperative complications following posterior column osteotomy versus posterior-based 3-column osteotomy for correction of rigid cervicothoracic deformity: a single-surgeon series of 95 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(3):297306.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Laratta JL, Ha A, Shillingford JN, et al. Neuromonitoring in spinal deformity surgery: a multimodality approach. Global Spine J. 2018;8(1):6877.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Clark AJ, Ziewacz JE, Safaee M, et al. Intraoperative neuromonitoring with MEPs and prediction of postoperative neurological deficits in patients undergoing surgery for cervical and cervicothoracic myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35(1):E7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Lau D, Dalle Ore CL, Reid P, et al. Utility of neuromonitoring during lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy for adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):397407.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Smith JS, Klineberg E, Shaffrey CI, et al. Assessment of surgical treatment strategies for moderate to severe cervical spinal deformity reveals marked variation in approaches, osteotomies, and fusion levels. World Neurosurg. 2016;91:228237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Passias PG, Horn SR, Raman T, et al. The impact of osteotomy grade and location on regional and global alignment following cervical deformity surgery. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2019;10(3):160166.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Obeid I, Diebo BG, Boissiere L, et al. Single level proximal thoracic pedicle subtraction osteotomy for fixed hyperkyphotic deformity: surgical technique and patient series. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2018;14(5):515523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Tobin MK, Birk DM, Rangwala SD, et al. T-1 pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of rigid cervical kyphotic deformity: report of 4 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27(5):487493.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Lafage R, et al. Three-column osteotomy for correction of cervical and cervicothoracic deformities: alignment changes and early complications in a multicenter prospective series of 23 patients. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(8):21282137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Tokala DP, Lam KS, Freeman BJ, Webb JK. C7 decancellisation closing wedge osteotomy for the correction of fixed cervico-thoracic kyphosis. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(9):14711478.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Samudrala S, Vaynman S, Thiayananthan T, et al. Cervicothoracic junction kyphosis: surgical reconstruction with pedicle subtraction osteotomy and Smith-Petersen osteotomy. Presented at the 2009 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(6):695706.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Ferguson J, Hwang SW, Tataryn Z, Samdani AF. Neuromonitoring changes in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: a single-institution experience. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;13(3):247254.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Safaee MM, Lyon R, Barbaro NM, et al. Neurological outcomes and surgical complications in 221 spinal nerve sheath tumors. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(1):103111.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Thuet ED, Winscher JC, Padberg AM, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoperative monitoring in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: a 23-year experience of 3436 surgical cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2010;35(20):18801886.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Wilent WB, Tesdahl EA, Harrop JS, et al. Utility of motor evoked potentials to diagnose and reduce lower extremity motor nerve root injuries during 4,386 extradural posterior lumbosacral spine procedures. Spine J. 2020;20(2):191198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Buchowski JM, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, et al. Neurologic complications of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a 10-year assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2007;32(20):22452252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, et al. The efficacy of motor evoked potentials in fixed sagittal imbalance deformity correction surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33(13):E414E424.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Ushirozako H, Yoshida G, Kobayashi S, et al. Transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring for the detection of nerve root injury during adult spinal deformity surgery. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(4):639647.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Chen Y, Wang BP, Yang J, Deng Y. Neurophysiological monitoring of lumbar spinal nerve roots: a case report of postoperative deficit and literature review. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;30:218221.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Wilent WB, Rhee JM, Harrop JS, et al. Therapeutic impact of traction release after C5 nerve root motor evoked potential (MEP) alerts in cervical spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33(10):E442E447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Oya J, Burke JF, Vogel T, et al. The accuracy of multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring to predict postoperative neurologic deficits following cervical laminoplasty. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:1725.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Bhalodia VM, Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative monitoring of transcranial electrical stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials and spontaneous electromyography activity to identify acute-versus delayed-onset C-5 nerve root palsy during cervical spine surgery: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(4):395402.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Yoshihara H, Margalit A, Yoneoka D. Incidence of C5 Palsy: Meta-Analysis and Potential Etiology. World Neurosurg. 2019;122:e828e837.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 40 40 40
Full Text Views 17 17 17
PDF Downloads 14 14 14
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0