Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: predictive value and relevance of D-wave amplitude on surgical outcome during a 10-year experience

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility, accuracy, and relevance on surgical outcome of D-wave monitoring combined with somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) during resection of intradural extramedullary (IDEM) spinal tumors.

METHODS

Clinical and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) data obtained in 108 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for IDEM tumors at the Institute for Scientific and Care Research “ASMN” of Reggio Emilia, Italy, were prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively analyzed. The IONM included SSEPs, MEPs, and—whenever possible—D-waves. All patients were evaluated using the modified McCormick Scale at admission and at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up .

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were included in this study. A monitorable D-wave was achieved in 71 of the 77 patients harboring cervical and thoracic IDEM tumors (92.2%). Recording of D-waves in IDEM tumors was significantly associated only with a preoperative deeply compromised neurological status evaluated using the modified McCormick Scale (p = 0.04). Overall, significant IONM changes were registered in 14 (12.96%) of 108 patients and 9 of these patients (8.33%) had permanent loss of at least one of the 3 evoked potentials. In 7 patients (6.48%), the presence of an s18278 caudal D-wave was predictive of a favorable long-term motor outcome even when the MEPs and/or SSEPs were lost during IDEM tumor resection. However, in 2 cases (1.85%) the D-wave permanently decreased by approximately 50%, and surgery was definitively abandoned to prevent permanent paraplegia. Cumulatively, SSEP, MEP, and D-wave monitoring significantly predicted postoperative deficits (p = 0.0001; AUC = 0.905), with a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 97%. Comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of these tests, D-waves appeared to have a significantly greater predictive value than MEPs and especially SSEPs alone (0.992 vs 0.798 vs 0.653; p = 0.023 and p < 0.001, respectively). On multiple logistic regression, the independent risk factors associated with significant IONM changes in the entire population were age older than 65 years and an anterolateral location of the tumor (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

D-wave monitoring was feasible in all patients without severe preoperative motor deficits. D-waves demonstrated a statistically significant higher ability to predict postoperative deficits compared with SSEPs and MEPs alone and allowed us to proceed with IDEM tumor resection, even in cases of SSEP and/or MEP loss. Patients older than 65 years and with anterolateral IDEM tumors can benefit most from the use of IONM.

ABBREVIATIONS AUC = area under the ROC curve; IDEM = intradural extramedullary; IONM = intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; ISCT = intramedullary spinal cord tumor; MEP = motor evoked potential; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SSEP = somatosensory evoked potential.

Article Information

Correspondence Davide Nasi: Umberto I General Hospital, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. davidenasi83@gmail.com.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online November 9, 2018; DOI: 10.3171/2018.7.SPINE18278.

Disclosures Dr. Iaccarino: consultant for Finceramica S.p.A.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    IONM recordings in a patient harboring a T7–8 solitary fibrous tumor. During tumor removal, the D-wave permanently decreased by about 50% (black arrow, left) the MEP disappeared (black arrow, center), and the SSEP increased in latency (black arrow, right). In this case, after several attempts to start again and to change surgical strategy, the operation was definitively abandoned to prevent permanent paraplegia (stop surgery), and a residual tumor was left in place. AbdHL = left abductor hallucis nerve; AbdHR = right abductor hallucis nerve; SEP = somatosensory evoked potential; Tib. AL = left anterior tibialis nerve; Tib. AR = right anterior tibialis nerve; Vast.L = left vastus lateralis; Vast.R = right vastus lateralis.

  • View in gallery

    IONM recording in a patient harboring a T5 anterolateral meningioma. During tumor removal, the MEP disappeared on both sides (black arrows), while the D-wave remained stable. In this patient, the stable D-wave allowed us to continue surgery, because neurophysiological literature suggests that patients usually wake up after the operation with a motor deficit but invariably recover over a period of days or weeks.

  • View in gallery

    ROC curves for the D-wave, MEP, and SSEP. Figure is available in color online only.

References

1

Ahn DKPark HSChoi DJKim KSKim TWPark SY: The surgical treatment for spinal intradural extramedullary tumors. Clin Orthop Surg 1:1651722009

2

Choi IHyun SJKang JKRhim SC: Combined muscle motor and somatosensory evoked potentials for intramedullary spinal cord tumour surgery. Yonsei Med J 55:106310712014

3

Costa PPeretta PFaccani G: Relevance of intraoperative D wave in spine and spinal cord surgeries. Eur Spine J 22:8408482013

4

Deletis VKothbauer K: Intraoperative neurophysiology of the corticospinaltract in Stålberg ESharma HSOlsson Y (eds): Spinal Cord Monitoring. Vienna: Springer1998 pp 421444

5

Deletis VSala F: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin Neurophysiol 119:2482642008

6

Fehlings MGBrodke DSNorvell DCDettori JR: The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (9 Suppl):S37S462010

7

Ghadirpour RNasi DIaccarino CGiraldi DSabadini RMotti L: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for intradural extramedullary tumors: why not? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 130:1401492015

8

Hadley MNShank CDRozzelle CJWalters BC: Guidelines for the use of electrophysiological monitoring for surgery of the human spinal column and spinal cord. Neurosurgery 81:7137322017

9

Harel RSchleifer DAppel SAttia MCohen ZRKnoller N: Spinal intradural extramedullary tumors: the value of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring on surgical outcome. Neurosurg Rev 40:6136192017

10

Helseth AMørk SJ: Primary intraspinal neoplasms in Norway, 1955 to 1986. A population-based survey of 467 patients. J Neurosurg 71:8428451989

11

Jallo GIFreed DEpstein F: Intramedullary spinal cord tumors in children. Childs Nerv Syst 19:6416492003

12

Joaquim AFAlmeida JPDos Santos MJGhizoni Ede Oliveira ETedeschi H: Surgical management of intradural extramedullary tumors located anteriorly to the spinal cord. J Clin Neurosci 19:115011532012

13

Korn AHalevi DLidar ZBiron TEkstein PConstantini S: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during resection of intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumors: experience with 100 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 157:8198302015

14

Kothbauer KFDeletis VEpstein FJ: Motor-evoked potential monitoring for intramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery: correlation of clinical and neurophysiological data in a series of 100 consecutive procedures. Neurosurg Focus 4(5):e11998

15

Lakomkin NMistry AMZuckerman SLLadner TKothari PLee NJ: Utility of intraoperative monitoring in the resection of spinal cord tumors: an analysis by tumor location and anatomical region. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:2872942018

16

Malhotra NRShaffrey CI: Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:216721792010

17

Nasi DGhadirpour RServadei F: Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring in spinal intradural extramedullary tumors: only a prognostic tool? Neurosurg Rev 40:5835852017

18

Sala FBricolo AFaccioli FLanteri PGerosa M: Surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: the role of intraoperative (neurophysiological) monitoring. Eur Spine J 16 (Suppl 2):S130S1392007

19

Sala FPalandri GBasso ELanteri PDeletis VFaccioli F: Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery 58:112911432006

20

Sandalcioglu IEHunold AMüller OBassiouni HStolke DAsgari S: Spinal meningiomas: critical review of 131 surgically treated patients. Eur Spine J 17:103510412008

21

Scibilia ATerranova CRizzo VRaffa GMorelli AEsposito F: Intraoperative neurophysiological mapping and monitoring in spinal tumor surgery: sirens or indispensable tools? Neurosurg Focus 41(2):E182016

22

Slin’ko EIAl-Qashqish II: Intradural ventral and ventrolateral tumors of the spinal cord: surgical treatment and results. Neurosurg Focus 17(1):ECP22004

23

Sutter MEggspuehler AGrob DJeszenszky DBenini APorchet F: The validity of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) in surgery of 109 spine and spinal cord tumors. Eur Spine J 16 (Suppl 2):S197S2082007

24

Van Goethem JWMvan den Hauwe LÖzsarlak ODe Schepper AMParizel PM: Spinal tumors. Eur J Radiol 50:1591762004

25

Westwick HJYuh SJShamji MF: Complication avoidance in the resection of spinal meningiomas. World Neurosurg 83:6276342015

TrendMD

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 110 110 110
Full Text Views 35 35 35
PDF Downloads 30 30 30
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar