Waveform Window #21: Anomaly during Pedicle Screw Stimulation

Justin W. Silverstein, Sushil K. Basra
{"title":"Waveform Window #21: Anomaly during Pedicle Screw Stimulation","authors":"Justin W. Silverstein, Sushil K. Basra","doi":"10.1080/1086508X.2011.11079831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Empirical data support the stimulation of pedicle screws intraoperatively to reduce the risk of neural damage to exiting nerve roots post-operatively. Lenke and colleagues (1995) published a range of threshold intensities to indicate whether a screw is directly making dural contact ( < 4 rnA), medially breached without dural contact (4 rnA to 8 rnA), or completely within pedicle(> 8 rnA). However, false negatives occur with screw stimulation which include: fluid in the wound (which would cause current shunting, requiring higher stimulus output), something other than the screw head being stimulated (for example, stimulus to wound tissue or screw crown would impede the current, making the threshold value of a distal electromyogram (EMG) response greater than it should be), or the patient is pharmacologically paralyzed (different levels of paralytic agents would cause higher thresholds needed to obtain a response). These false negatives tend to manifest as high impedance threshold values (>50 rnA). We present a case where eight pedicle screws were stimulated via a monopolar intraoperative stimulation probe. The reference was placed in the wound rostral to stimulation, not far from the stimulus. A rep rate of 2. 79 Hz and duration of .2 msec was utilized. Sub-maximal stimulation was utilized to obtain the response. This is the least amount of current needed to elicit a compound muscle action potential (CMAP). Note in the figures presented the morphology and amplitude differences from each CMAP acquired, as screw stimulation elicits variable responses at every level tested. A time base of 5 msec/div and a sensitivity of 100 11 V /div were used. Each screw had a threshold value greater than 50 rnA with the exception of the left S 1 screw which elicited a response at 12 rnA. After deducing there were no indications for a false negative to occur, we decided to remove the screw and manually probe the hole.","PeriodicalId":7480,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Electroneurodiagnostic Technology","volume":"55 1","pages":"296 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Electroneurodiagnostic Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1086508X.2011.11079831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Empirical data support the stimulation of pedicle screws intraoperatively to reduce the risk of neural damage to exiting nerve roots post-operatively. Lenke and colleagues (1995) published a range of threshold intensities to indicate whether a screw is directly making dural contact ( < 4 rnA), medially breached without dural contact (4 rnA to 8 rnA), or completely within pedicle(> 8 rnA). However, false negatives occur with screw stimulation which include: fluid in the wound (which would cause current shunting, requiring higher stimulus output), something other than the screw head being stimulated (for example, stimulus to wound tissue or screw crown would impede the current, making the threshold value of a distal electromyogram (EMG) response greater than it should be), or the patient is pharmacologically paralyzed (different levels of paralytic agents would cause higher thresholds needed to obtain a response). These false negatives tend to manifest as high impedance threshold values (>50 rnA). We present a case where eight pedicle screws were stimulated via a monopolar intraoperative stimulation probe. The reference was placed in the wound rostral to stimulation, not far from the stimulus. A rep rate of 2. 79 Hz and duration of .2 msec was utilized. Sub-maximal stimulation was utilized to obtain the response. This is the least amount of current needed to elicit a compound muscle action potential (CMAP). Note in the figures presented the morphology and amplitude differences from each CMAP acquired, as screw stimulation elicits variable responses at every level tested. A time base of 5 msec/div and a sensitivity of 100 11 V /div were used. Each screw had a threshold value greater than 50 rnA with the exception of the left S 1 screw which elicited a response at 12 rnA. After deducing there were no indications for a false negative to occur, we decided to remove the screw and manually probe the hole.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
波形窗口#21:椎弓根螺钉刺激期间的异常
经验数据支持术中刺激椎弓根螺钉可降低术后出根神经损伤的风险。Lenke及其同事(1995)公布了一系列阈值强度,以指示螺钉是否直接接触硬脑膜(< 4 rnA),是否在硬脑膜未接触的情况下(4 rnA至8 rnA),或完全在椎根内(> 8 rnA)。然而,螺钉刺激会出现假阴性,包括:伤口中有液体(这会导致电流分流,需要更高的刺激输出),除螺钉头外的其他东西受到刺激(例如,对伤口组织或螺钉冠的刺激会阻碍电流,使远端肌电图(EMG)反应的阈值高于应有值),或者患者在药理学上瘫痪(不同水平的麻痹剂会导致获得反应所需的更高阈值)。这些假阴性倾向于表现为高阻抗阈值(>50 rnA)。我们报告了一例通过单极术中刺激探针刺激8个椎弓根螺钉的病例。参考点放置在伤口吻侧刺激处,离刺激点不远。重复率为2。79赫兹,持续时间0.2毫秒。利用次极大刺激获得反应。这是引起复合肌肉动作电位(CMAP)所需的最小电流。图中显示了每个CMAP的形态和振幅差异,因为螺旋刺激在每个测试水平上都会引起不同的反应。时间基为5毫秒/分,灵敏度为100 11 V /分。每个螺钉的阈值都大于50 rnA,但左侧s1螺钉的阈值为12 rnA。在推断没有出现假阴性的迹象后,我们决定取下螺钉并手动探查孔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Water Management Projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Examining the Ethical Considerations Surrounding the Development and Use of AI Design and Implementation of a Secure Virtual Private Network Over an Open Network (Internet) Effects of ICT in Hotel Industry in South Africa Use of Mobile Phones in Nigeria to Prevent Crime
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1