Multimodality Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Alerts in 628 Patients

Overview

Journal Global Spine J

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2021 Mar 18

PMID 33733881

Citations 4

Authors

Ram K Alluri

Avani S Vaishnav

Ahilan Sivaganesan

Luke Ricci

Evan Sheha

Sheeraz A Qureshi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases.

Objectives: To review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels.

Methods: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared.

Results: A total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level ( = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 ( < .03).

Conclusions: IONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

Citing Articles

Is the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Justified During Lumbar Anterior Approach Surgery?.

Blumenthal S, Edionwe J, Courtois E, Guyer R, Satin A, Ohnmeiss D Int J Spine Surg. 2024; 18(2):217-221.

PMID: 38471741 PMC: 11292559. DOI: 10.14444/8589.

Prone position lateral interbody fusion-a narrative review.

Patel H, Fasani-Feldberg G, Patel H J Spine Surg. 2023; 9(3):331-341.

PMID: 37841787 PMC: 10570633. DOI: 10.21037/jss-23-34.

The Role of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Modalities in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

Chandra A, Vaishnav A, Shahi P, Song J, Mok J, Alluri R HSS J. 2023; 19(1):53-61.

PMID: 36776519 PMC: 9837402. DOI: 10.1177/15563316221110572.

A Computerized Analysis with Machine Learning Techniques for the Diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease: Past Studies and Future Perspectives.

Rana A, Dumka A, Singh R, Panda M, Priyadarshi N Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(11).

PMID: 36359550 PMC: 9689408. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112708.

References

Nichols G, Manafov E . Utility of electromyography for nerve root monitoring during spinal surgery. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2012; 29(2):140-8. DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e31824cece6. View

Youssef J, McAfee P, Patty C, Raley E, DeBauche S, Shucosky E . Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(26 Suppl):S302-11. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182023438. View

Cahill K, Martinez J, Wang M, Vanni S, Levi A . Motor nerve injuries following the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17(3):227-31. DOI: 10.3171/2012.5.SPINE1288. View

Barbagallo G, Albanese V, Raich A, Dettori J, Sherry N, Balsano M . Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2014; 5(1):28-37. PMC: 3969425. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368670. View

Sarwahi V, Pawar A, Sugarman E, Legatt A, Dworkin A, Thornhill B . Triggered EMG Potentials in Determining Neuroanatomical Safe Zone for Transpsoas Lumbar Approach: Are They Reliable?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 41(11):E647-E653. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001381. View

Laws C, Coughlin D, Lotz J, Serhan H, Hu S . Direct lateral approach to lumbar fusion is a biomechanically equivalent alternative to the anterior approach: an in vitro study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(10):819-25. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823551aa. View

Riley M, Doan A, Vogel R, Aguirre A, Pieri K, Scheid E . Use of motor evoked potentials during lateral lumbar interbody fusion reduces postoperative deficits. Spine J. 2018; 18(10):1763-1778. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.024. View

Ploumis A, Wu C, Fischer G, Mehbod A, Wu W, Faundez A . Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008; 21(2):120-5. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318060092f. View

Louie P, Haws B, Khan J, Markowitz J, Movassaghi K, Ferguson J . Comparison of Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterolateral Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease Following Previous Lumbar Fusion Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019; 44(24):E1461-E1469. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003191. View

10.

Uribe J, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale F . Defining the safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010; 13(2):260-6. DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09766. View

11.

Berends H, Journee H, Racz I, Loon J, Hartl R, Spruit M . Multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring in extreme lateral interbody fusion. Transcranial electrical stimulation as indispensable rearview. Eur Spine J. 2015; 25(5):1581-1586. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-4182-9. View

12.

Sofianos D, Briseno M, Abrams J, Patel A . Complications of the lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody arthrodesis: a case series and literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 470(6):1621-32. PMC: 3348303. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2088-3. View

13.

Krause K, Cheaney Ii B, Obayashi J, Kawamoto A, Than K . Intraoperative neuromonitoring for one-level lumbar discectomies is low yield and cost-ineffective. J Clin Neurosci. 2019; 71:97-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2019.08.116. View

14.

Kepler C, Sharma A, Huang R, Meredith D, Girardi F, Cammisa Jr F . Indirect foraminal decompression after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 16(4):329-33. DOI: 10.3171/2012.1.SPINE11528. View

15.

Houten J, Alexandre L, Nasser R, Wollowick A . Nerve injury during the transpsoas approach for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 15(3):280-4. DOI: 10.3171/2011.4.SPINE1127. View

16.

Regev G, Chen L, Dhawan M, Lee Y, Garfin S, Kim C . Morphometric analysis of the ventral nerve roots and retroperitoneal vessels with respect to the minimally invasive lateral approach in normal and deformed spines. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(12):1330-5. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a029e1. View

17.

Mandelli C, Colombo E, Sicuri G, Mortini P . Lumbar plexus nervous distortion in XLIF approach: an anatomic study. Eur Spine J. 2016; 25(12):4155-4163. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4617-y. View

18.

Benglis D, Vanni S, Levi A . An anatomical study of the lumbosacral plexus as related to the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 10(2):139-44. DOI: 10.3171/2008.10.SPI08479. View

19.

Cummock M, Vanni S, Levi A, Yu Y, Wang M . An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 15(1):11-8. DOI: 10.3171/2011.2.SPINE10374. View

20.

R Jahangiri F, Holmberg A, Vega-Bermudez F, Arlet V . Preventing position-related brachial plexus injury with intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials during anterior cervical spine surgery. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol. 2011; 51(3):198-205. View