This study aimed to review information on the subaxial cervical pedicle screw (CPS) including recent anatomical considerations, entry points, placement techniques, accuracy, learning curve, and complications. Relevant literatures were reviewed, and the authors' experiences were summarized. The CPS is used for reconstruction of unstable cervical spine and achieves superior biomechanical stability compared to other fixation techniques. Various insertion and guidance techniques are established, among which, lateral fluoroscopy-assisted placement is the most common and cost-effective technique. Generally, placement under imaging guidance is more accurate than other techniques, and a threedimensional template allows optimal trajectory for each pedicle regardless of intraoperative changes in spinal alignment. The free-hand technique using a curved pedicle probe without a funnel-like hole increases screw stability and reduces operation time, radiation exposure, and soft tissue injury. Compared to conventional lateral fluoroscopy-assisted placement, free-hand CPS placement by trained surgeons achieves superior accuracy comparable to that of image-guided navigation; in general, 30 training cases are sufficient for learning a safe and accurate technique for CPS placement. The complications of subaxial CPS are classified into three categories: complications due to screw misplacement, complications without screw misplacement, and others. Inexperienced surgeons may benefit from advanced techniques; however, the accuracy of CPS ultimately depends on the surgeon's experience. Inexperienced surgeons should master the placement of the thoracolumbar pedicle screw in real practice and practice CPS insertion using cadavers. During the initial phase of the learning curve, careful preparation of surgery, reiterated identification, patterned safety steps, and supervision of the expert are necessary.

Objective: Cauda equina tumors affect the peripheral nervous system, and the validities of triggered electromyogram (tEMG) and intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IOM) are unclear. We sought to evaluate the accuracy and relevance of tEMG combined with IOM during cauda equina tumor resection. Methods: Between 2008 and 2018, an experienced surgeon performed cauda equina tumor resections using tEMG at a single institution. A cauda equina tumor was defined as an intradural-extramedullary or intradural-extradural tumor at the level of L2 or lower. The clinical presentation, extent of resection, pathology, recurrence, postoperative neurological outcomes, and intraoperative tEMG mapping and IOM data were retrospectively analyzed. Results: One hundred three patients who underwent intraoperative tEMG were included; 38 underwent only tEMG (tEMG-only group), and 65 underwent a combination of tEMG and multimodal IOM (MIOM group). There were no significant differences between the neurologic outcomes, extents of resection, or recurrence rates of the 2 groups. No significant therapeutic benefit was observed; however, the accuracy of intraoperative predetection improved with the combination of IOM and tEMG (accuracy: tEMG-only group, 86.8%; MIOM group, 92.3%). When the involved rootlet was resected despite the positive tEMG result, motor function worsened in 3 of 8 cases. The sensitivity and specificity of tEMG were 37.5% and 94.7%, respectively. Conclusion: tEMG is an essential adjunctive surgical tool for deciding on and planning for rootlet resection. If the tEMG finding is negative, complete resection, involving the rootlet, may be safe. The accuracy may be further improved by using a combination of tEMG and IOM.