黑料网

Approximately 15% of neurogenic tumors are intraspinal. Primary intraspinal tumors are those that originate in intraspinal tissues; secondary intraspinal tumors are those that originate in tissues that extend beyond the intraspinal origin or that have metastasized long distances to spinal tissues. Surgical decompression, with or without instrumentation, is the treatment of choice for patients who present with symptoms or notice that there is evidence of tumor growth [1]. The "gold standard" for most intraspinal tumors is total resection. Going against the norm, at whatever point that growths are adjoining significant primary, all out resection isn't protected . The removal of a spinal cord lesion always carries the possibility of neurological damage after surgery. Nerve root deficits have a postoperative complication rate of 6–8%, and myelopathy has a rate of 3–12%. Today, technological advancements have significantly improved intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spinal surgery. The benefit of IONM has been reported in deformity spinal surgery. IONM shows high sensitivity and specificity in deformity correction spinal surgery, preventing postoperative neurological complications [2]. The goal of the IONM is to prevent irreversible neural injury by using the appropriate IONM modalities that alert, rather than predict, a neurological complication. In this, IONM is using electrophysiological recordings such as motor evoked potential (MEP), somatosensor

In this study, the neurological outcomes of intradural spinal tumor surgeries with and without IONM were compared. To demonstrate the ability of IONM to predict postoperative neurological outcome and neurological recovery in intradural spinal tumors, we conduct a retrospective study [3]. The study's retrospective design only provides original information from a setting with limited resources, making it worthy of consideration.

IONM was alert in 20 cases, but only 9 cases were left after the rescue protocol was completed (four IMSCT and five IDEM). In cases of alarm IONM, the patient's postoperative score decreased. There were a total of nine alarm IONM patients, with two having true positive results for early worsening postoperative neurological outcome and being diagnosed with IMSCT. Even though there were 56 non-alarm IONM patients, only 1.79 percent had false negative results that indicated an early worsening of the neurological outcome following surgery. Alarm IONM had a sensitivity of 66.7 percent and a specificity of 88.7 percent, respectively, for predicting early worsening of the neurological outcome following surgery [4]. The negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.2 percent, while the positive predictive value (PPV) was 22.2 percent. The term "true positive" refers to the alarm IONM correctly indicating a worsening neurological outcome following surgery. True negative refers to non-alarm IONM, which correctly indicates a favorable neurological outcome following surgery. The alarm IONM incorrectly indicates a particular condition is referred to as a false positive. Non-alarm IONM incorrectly indicates a particular condition as a false negative. When alarm IONM is used, the probability of a worsening neurological outcome postoperatively is referred to as PPV (5.90 times). In nonalarm IONM, the likelihood of a favorable neurological outcome after surgery is referred to as the NPV (0.38 times).

MEP were developed to better characterize the integrity of the corticospinal tracts. In the 1970s, SSEP were developed as an indirect method of monitoring the ventral corticospinal tracts through dorsal column integrity [5]. However, several studies reported its limitation regarding postoperative neurological deficit in normal SSEP. EMG is a real-time monitoring of nerve root function, particularly during instrumentation and manipulation during surgery. Due to the effectiveness of replacing the limitations of individual monitoring, multimodality neurophysiological monitoring has become a standard procedure for a variety of spinal procedures. In addition, it was useful for predicting postoperative neurological deficit and recovery. Spinal deformity surgery has utilized a combination of MEP and SSEP monitoring [6]. In particular, the addition of free running EMG and triggered EMG can improve the efficiency with which nerve root injuries can be detected. Correlations between IONM changes and postoperative neurological outcomes indicate that alarm IONM contributed to postoperative neurological poor outcome or neurological deficit. It may assist in detecting early neural injury at a reversible stage, preventing poor postoperative outcomes. On the other hand, intraoperative recovery of the IONM modality can indicate a favorable postoperative outcome. In addition, it aids in improving the assessment of neural function, thereby guiding intraoperative decisionmaking regarding what should be done at that time for the management of alarm IONM in that position.

In our review we utilized a few estimations (Frankel Grade, JOA Score, ASIA Score, McCormick Score, KPS Scale) to track down the relationship between's utilized of IONM and postoperative neurological results. All measurements improved over the 24 months following surgery in both groups, but only the IONM group saw a statistically significant improvement. Additionally, there was a statistically significant distinction in the improvement of the neurological postoperative outcome between the IONM and non-IONM groups. In addition, all measurements decreased in the non-IONM group one month after surgery; however, neurological outcomes improved following treatment, but not by a statistically significant amount [7]. Minor surgical injuries to the neural integrity, such as intraoperative manipulation or neural tissue contusion during tumor dissection, are probably to blame for this. In intradural spinal tumor surgery, we presume that the routine use of multimodality IONM resulted in a decrease in neurological deficit and improved postoperative neurological outcome.

We found that using IONM prevented neuronal injury and improved postoperative neurological outcomes, particularly in IDEM spinal tumors (OR 0.187, 95 % CI 0.05–0.71; p = 0.014). On the other hand, IMSCT was a significant risk factor for poor postoperative neurological outcomes and postoperative neurological deficits (OR 16.5; 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 3.85–70.67); (p-value 0.001) We believed that tumors in the spinal cord were exacerbated by IMSCT, and that spinal cord myelotomies were more likely to result in neurological deficits. The intraoperative lesion was an infiltrative mass, especially in rare intramedullary schwannoma tumors. Gross total resection is not possible because removing the tumor could damage the spinal cord's important structures and the small vessels that supplied it. These may increase the likelihood of adverse neurological outcomes following surgery [8]. Although the first month after surgery saw a decrease in neurological outcomes, treatment resulted in an improvement, but not a statistically significant one, as shown in . In IMSCT, the rate of prolonged neurological deficit in the IONM group was lower than in the non-IONM group. Yoshida and team has announced higher conceivable neurological shortfall rate in IMSCT activity with IONM than other sort of spinal surgery , which is reliable in this ongoing report. Besides, we found that sex, age, BMI, growth size, term of side effects, fundamental sickness were not correspond with postoperative neurological results.

Previously, many examinations have revealed awareness and explicitness around 100 % for joined MEP SSEP with/without EMG IONM. In the alternate way, Hamilton et al. reported that only 43%, 13%, and 29% of the 108,419 patients who underwent spinal deformity surgery with IONM (SSEP + MEP and/or EMG) showed sensitivity in detecting spinal cord deficits, nerve root deficits, and cauda equina deficits in spinal surgery, respectively, while 98–99% of the patients had poor outcomes [9,10]. From our study, we reported that sensitivity and specificity for detecting postoperative neurological deficit Similar to Hamilton et al., we met that. has stated. We anticipated the variation in numerical data, particularly sensitivity, which could be caused by factors that are out of one's control during surgery, such as intraoperative hypothermia, hypotension, and a history of chronic neuropathy. From our information, PPV alludes to the probability of deteriorating postoperative neurological result when alert IONM (5.90 times). NPV alludes to the probability of good postoperative neurological result when non-alert IONM (0.38 times). We assumed that alarm IONM could be a useful indicator for predicting neurological deficits or poor outcomes following surgery. Furthermore, it was presumptuous that the absence of an alarm could serve as a reliable predictor of a favorable neurological outcome following surgery.

Conclusion

There were several limitations to the current study. To finish benefit investigation of utilized IONM required more elevated degree of proof. To accurately represent the data, prospective randomized controlled trial studies must be conducted. For instance, sensitivity, specificity, and the rate of neurological deficits following surgery. A second group consisted of a select few patients who met the alarm criteria for neurological impairment. More quantities of patients should be assessed in the future to report genuinely significant end. Additionally, there were several uncontrollable factors in this cohort, including anesthesia-related complications and chronic neuropathy-related underlying disease. Controllable factors perhaps address significant or significant data.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Proske U,Wise AK,Gregory JE (2000) . Prog Neurobiol 60: 85-96.

, ,

2. Jason BF,Gunter PS,Jean SB (2018) . J Neurophysiol 120: 361-371.

, ,

3. Tetsuo F,Yasuo K,Keitaro K,Hiroaki K (2002) . Exerc Sport Sci Rev 30: 106-110.

, ,

4. Vahid RS,Amir HJ,Reza B (2017) . Technol Health Care 25: 123-136.

, ,

5. Yasuhiro T,Yusuke O,Patricia ALL,Munekazu N,Takashi N, et al. (2021) . J Craniofac Surg 32: 1532-1534.

, ,

6. Hodges PW,Sapsford R,Pengel LHM (2007) . Neurourol Urodyn 26: 362-371.

, ,

7. Inglis JT,Frank JS, Inglis B (1991) . Exp Brain Res 84: 631-634.

, ,

8. Hoffman DS, Strick PL (1999) . J Neurophysiol 81: 319-333.

, ,

9. Soest AJV, Bobbert MF (1993) . Biol Cybern 69: 195-204.

, ,

10. Woollacott MH, Hosten CV, Rosblad B (1988) . Exp Brain Res 72: 593-604.

, ,