Download Free Medical Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor PowerPoint Presentation

Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor PowerPoint Presentation

DOWNLOAD MEDICAL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

About This Presentation

Description : Check out this medical presentation on Neurology, which is titled "Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials", to know about the evidence regarding whether spinal cord intraoperative monitoring (IOM) with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (EPs) predicts adverse surgical outcomes.

Tags : Neurology, Intraoperative spinal monitoring, somatosensory, transcranial electrical motor

Published on : Aug 18, 2021 | Views : 1712 | Downloads : 0

Shareable Url :

Embed Code :

Comment

Transcript

Slide 1-

update: Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society
Slide 2-

Authors Marc R. Nuwer, MD, PhD, FAAN Ronald G. Emerson, MD, FAAN Gloria Galloway, MD, FAAN Alan D. Legatt, MD, PhD, FAAN Jaime Lopez, MD Robert Minahan, MD Thoru Yamada, MD Douglas S. Goodin, MD Carmel Armon, MD, MHS, FAAN Vinay Chaudhry, MD, FAAN Gary S. Gronseth, MD, FAAN Cynthia L. Harden, MD
Slide 3-

Sharing this information The AAN develops these presentation slides as educational tools for neurologists and other health care practitioners. You may download and retain a single copy for your personal use. Please contact guidelines@aan.com to learn about options for sharing this content beyond your personal use.
Slide 4-

Guideline Endorsement Endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine
Slide 5-

Presentation Objectives To present analysis of the evidence regarding whether spinal cord intraoperative monitoring (IOM) with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (EPs) predicts adverse surgical outcomes To present an evidence-based recommendation
Slide 6-

Overview Background Gaps in care American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline process Analysis of evidence, conclusion, recommendation Recommendations for future research
Slide 7-

Background Paraparesis, paraplegia, and quadriplegia are complications of spinal surgery and certain surgeries of the aorta. IOM of neural function is used to warn of the risk of surgical complications.1–6 Anesthesiologists and surgeons are able to intervene in a variety of ways when IOM raises warnings. Reduce the degree of distraction Adjust retractors
Slide 8-

Background, cont. Remove or adjust grafts or hardware Reimplant or unclamp arteries Place vascular bypass grafts Minimize remaining portion of surgery Check a wake-up test
Slide 9-

Gaps in Care The usefulness of IOM in the operating room for neurologic procedures is not broadly understood. Many spinal and chest surgery cases currently are unmonitored, which risks postoperative paraplegia that could have been prevented. Surgeons, neurologists, and insurance carriers are unaware of the efficacy of IOM to identify patients at high risk during spinal or chest surgery. The efficacy of IOM is not commonly known across health systems.
Slide 10-

AAN Guideline Process Clinical Question Evidence Conclusions Recommendations
Slide 11-

Clinical Question Does IOM with somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (tceMEPs) predict adverse surgical outcomes?
Slide 12-

Literature Search/Review Rigorous, Comprehensive, Transparent Review abstracts Search Review full text Select articles Relevant Search
Slide 13-

AAN Classification of Evidence All studies rated Class I, II, III, or IV Five different classification systems Therapeutic Randomization, control, blinding Diagnostic Comparison with gold standard Prognostic Screening Causation
Slide 14-

AAN Level of Recommendations A = Established as effective, ineffective or harmful (or established as useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population B = Probably effective, ineffective or harmful (or probably useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population C = Possibly effective, ineffective or harmful (or possibly useful/predictive or not useful/predictive) for the given condition in the specified population U = Data inadequate or conflicting; given current knowledge, treatment (test, predictor) is unproven Note that recommendations can be positive or negative
Slide 15-

Translating Class to Recommendations A = Requires at least two consistent Class I studies* B = Requires at least one Class I study or two consistent Class II studies C = Requires at least one Class II study or two consistent Class III studies U = Studies not meeting criteria for Class I through Class III
Slide 16-

Applying the Process to the Issue We will now turn our attention to the guidelines.
Slide 17-

Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched Key words: monitoring, intraoperative, evoked potentials, paralysis, and intraoperative complications Relevant, fully published, peer-reviewed articles Minimum study size: 100 patients for orthopedic procedures and 20 patients for neurosurgical or cardiothoracic procedures See appendices e-3 and e-4 of the published guideline for full search strategies
Slide 18-

Methods, cont. At least two authors reviewed each article for inclusion Risk of bias was determined using the classification of evidence for each study (Classes I and II) Strength of practice recommendation was linked directly to levels of evidence (Level A) Conflicts of interest were disclosed
Slide 19-

Literature Search/Review Rigorous, Comprehensive, Transparent 12 articles 604 abstracts Inclusion criteria: Reporting clearly on outcomes of paraparesis, paraplegia, or quadriplegia Assessing primarily the spinal cord Assessing SEP and tceMEP Representing consecutive series of a representative group of patients, preferably prospective - Following IOM protocol established in advance - Identifying IOM changes in real time Exclusion criteria: Articles rated as Class III or IV
Slide 20-

AAN Classification of Evidence for Diagnostic Accuracy Class I: A cohort study with prospective data collection of a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition, using an acceptable reference standard for case definition. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of the patient’s clinical status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy. Class II: A case control study of a broad spectrum of persons with the condition established by an acceptable reference standard compared to a broad spectrum of controls or a cohort study where a broad spectrum of persons with the suspected condition where the data was collected retrospectively. The diagnostic test is objective or performed and interpreted without knowledge of disease status. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy.
Slide 21-

AAN Classification of Evidence for Diagnostic Accuracy, cont. Class III: A case control study or cohort study where either persons with the condition or controls are of a narrow spectrum. The condition is established by an acceptable reference standard. The reference standard and diagnostic test are objective or performed and interpreted by different observers. Study results allow calculation of measures of diagnostic accuracy. Class IV: Studies not meeting Class I, II or III criteria, including consensus, expert opinion or a case report.
Slide 22-

Clinical Question Does IOM with SEPs and tceMEPs predict adverse surgical outcomes?
Slide 23-

Conclusion IOM is established as effective to predict an increased risk of the adverse outcomes of paraparesis, paraplegia, and quadriplegia in spinal surgery (4 Class I and 7 Class II studies).
Slide 24-

Recommendation Surgeons and other members of the operating team should be alerted to the increased risk of severe adverse neurologic outcomes in patients with important IOM changes (Level A).
Slide 25-

Clinical Context In practice, after being alerted to IOM changes, the operating team intervenes to attempt to reduce the risk of adverse neurologic outcomes. No studies in humans have directly measured the efficacy of such interventions. However, multiple controlled studies in animals7–12 have demonstrated that intervening after IOM alerts (as opposed to not intervening) reduces the risk of permanent neurologic injury. On this basis, it seems reasonable to assume that such interventions might improve outcomes in humans as well. It is unlikely that controlled human studies designed to determine the efficacy of post-IOM alert interventions will ever be performed.
Slide 26-

Clinical Context, cont. This analysis did not compare MEP with SEP. The 2 techniques differ slightly. MEP more directly monitors the motor pathway itself. One technique may change while the other remains stable, or one may change earlier than the other. MEP requires more restrictive anesthesia requirements, causes patient movement, and has less-clear criteria for raising an alarm. SEP can localize an injury or site of ischemia more exactly. The tceMEPs are often used intermittently because of movements that occur with the stimulus.
Slide 27-

Clinical Context, cont. Sometimes one technique can be accomplished throughout a case, whereas the other techniques cannot. As a result, it may be most appropriate for the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and neurophysiologic monitoring team to choose which techniques are most appropriate for an individual patient. Conducting both techniques together is a reasonable choice for many patients. Neither technique can predict the onset of paraplegia that is delayed until hours or days after the end of surgery. Neither technique should be considered to have perfect predictive ability when no EP change is seen; rare false-negative monitoring has occurred.1,2
Slide 28-

Clinical Context, cont. The studies reported here varied somewhat in the criteria used to raise alerts. The specific criteria used are reported in table e-1. of the published guideline. These IOM studies involved a knowledgeable professional clinical neurophysiologist supervisor. These studies support performance of IOM when conducted under the supervision of a clinical neurophysiologist experienced with IOM.2,13,14 IOM conducted by technicians alone or by an automated device is not supported by the studies reported here because these studies did not use that practice model and because there is a lack of identified well-designed published outcomes studies demonstrating efficacy with those practice models.
Slide 29-

Future Research Recommendations Pooling of results from a large series of well-monitored patients may permit determination if the low false-negative frequency for MEP IOM in the reported studies is a generalizable observation. A better understanding of anterior spinal artery syndrome may help to reduce further the rate of paraplegia and paraparesis after spinal surgery.
Slide 30-

Future Research Recommendations, cont. If limitations in the techniques reviewed can be identified explicitly and methods to correct those limitations are developed, then comparisons among different monitoring techniques may be desirable.
Slide 31-

References Nuwer MR, ed. Intraoperative Monitoring of Neural Function. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. Daube JR, Marguie´re F, series eds. Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology; vol 8. Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson G, Kanim LEA, Sherman JE. Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;96:6–11. Sala F, Palandri G, Basso E, et al. Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery 2006;58:1129–1143. Improved preservation of facial nerve function with use of electrical monitoring during removal of acoustic neuromas. Mayo Clin Proc 1987;62:92–102. Radtke RA, Erwin CW, Wilkins RH. Intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potentials: significant decrease in postoperative morbidity. Neurology 1989;39:187–191.
Slide 32-

References, cont. Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, Dettori JR. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine 2010;35:S37–S46. Coles JG, Wilson GJ, Sima AF, Klement P, Tait GA. Intraoperative detection of spinal cord ischemia using somatosensory cortical evoked potentials during thoracic aortic occlusion. Ann Thorac Surg 1982;34:299–306. Kojima Y, Yamamoto T, Ogino H, Okada K, Ono K. Evoked spinal potentials as a monitor of spinal cord viability. Spine 1979;4:471–477. Laschinger JC, Cunningham JN Jr, Catinella FP, Nathan IM, Knopp EA, Spencer FC. Detection and prevention of intraoperative spinal cord ischemia after cross-clamping of the thoracic aorta: use of somatosensory evoked potentials. Surgery 1982;92:1109–1117. Cheng MK, Robertson C, Grossman RG, Foltz R, Williams V. Neurological outcome correlated with spinal evoked potentials in a spinal ischemia model. J Neurosurg 1984;60:786–795.
Slide 33-

References, cont. Nordwall A, Axelgaard J, Harada Y, Valencia P, McNeal DR, Brown JC. Spinal cord monitoring using evoked potentials recorded from feline vertebral bone. Spine 1979;4:486–494. Bennett MH. Effects of compression and ischemia on spinal cord evoked potentials. Exp Neurol 1983;80:508–519. American Medical Association. Diagnosis of disease and diagnostic interpretation of tests constitutes practice of medicine to be performed by or under the supervision of licensed physicians. Policy H-35.971. Adopted December 2006. Available at: https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?sitewww.ama-assn.org&uri%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-35.971.HTM. Accessed February 1, 2010. American Medical Association. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. Policy H-410.957. Adopted June 2008. https://ssl3.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?sitewww.ama-assn.org&uri%2fresources%2fdoc%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-410.957.HTM. Accessed February 1, 2010.
Slide 34-

References, cont. For a complete list of references, please access the full guideline at guidelines@aan.com.
Slide 35-

Questions/comments? Question-and-Answer Period
Slide 36-

Thank you for your participation! Closing