2007
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0424-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during cervical spine surgical procedures in 246 patients

Abstract: A prospective study of 246 patients who received multimodal intraoperative monitoring during cervical spine surgery between March 2000 and December 2005. To determine the sensitivity and specificity of MIOM techniques used to monitor spinal cord and nerve root function during cervical spine surgery. It is appreciated that complication rate of cervical spine surgery is low, however, there is a significant risk of neurological injury. The combination of monitoring of ascending and descending pathways may provide… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Eggspuehler et al [28] employed CMAP in 216 cases of spinal deformity, reporting the average number of channels to be 2.8 pairs (5.6 channels). Eggspuehler et al [29] also employed CMAP in 241 cases of cervical spine surgery, reporting the average number of channels to be 2.6 pairs (5.2 channels). Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) was performed in the cases in all of the reports to employ other monitoring methods to detect paralysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eggspuehler et al [28] employed CMAP in 216 cases of spinal deformity, reporting the average number of channels to be 2.8 pairs (5.6 channels). Eggspuehler et al [29] also employed CMAP in 241 cases of cervical spine surgery, reporting the average number of channels to be 2.6 pairs (5.2 channels). Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) was performed in the cases in all of the reports to employ other monitoring methods to detect paralysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obtained from the author's archive However the evidence does not meet the level 1 standard (large randomized, placebo controlled, double blind studies). The evidence is based on large case series and meta analysis (level 2, 3 evidence) where MEP changes predicted immediate postsurgical neurological findings [ 10,[42][43][44] .…”
Section: Application Of Mep Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The advent of corticospinal motor pathway monitoring through the use of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial electrical stimulation added more information for the surgeon. Such achievements during the last 15 years turned neuromonitoring into the standard of care to assess proper hardware position in the spine [34][35][36][37][38][39][40] and also making more aggressive corrections in spinal deformities possible [41][42][43][44][45][46]. Different protocols might combine evoked potentials (SEPs and MEPs) [33,[47][48][49][50][51], transcranial electric motor evoked potentials (tcMEP) [52] and triggered or free-running electromyography [35,36,53,54] and it is crucial to understand their differences to prompt proper communication between surgeons, anesthetists and the neuromonitoring team.…”
Section: Intraoperative Neuromonitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%