Objective To explore the impact of using neurophysiological monitoring during spinal cord intramedullary tumor resection surgery on surgical outcomes and patient prognosis. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 92 patients with spinal cord intramedullary tumors who underwent microsurgical resection treatment at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital affiliated to Capital Medical University from January 2018 to December 2020. Among them, 48 patients received traditional microsurgical resection treatment (control group), while the other 44 patients received microsurgical resection treatment + neurophysiological monitoring (combination group). The surgical resection effects, spinal cord function evaluation at different times before and after surgery, clinical symptoms and postoperative occurrence at 3 years were compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistical difference in total tumor resection rate between the combined group and control group (P>0.05). Before surgery, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of sensory dysfunction, motor dysfunction, pain and sphincter dysfunction between the combination group and the control group (P>0.05). The incidence of sensory dysfunction and motor dysfunction in combined group patients at 6 months and 3 months after surgery were significantly lower than those in control group (P<0.05). Before surgery, there was no statistical difference in the composition of the McCormick grading of spinal cord function between combination group and control group (P>0.05). After 6 months of postoperative evaluation, the McCormick grading of spinal cord in combination group was better than that in the control group (P<0.05). After a 3-year follow-up, the recurrence rate in combination group was 6.82%, while the recurrence rate in control group was 12.50%. There was no statistical difference in the recurrence rate between two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions The use of neurophysiological monitoring during spinal cord intramedullary tumor resection surgery is more conducive to reducing spinal cord injury caused by surgery, promoting postoperative recovery of motor and sensory functions and spinal cord function in patients, but it has little impact on the prognosis of patients.
Key words
Spinal cord; /
/
Intramedullary tumors; /
/
Microscopic surgery; /
/
Neuroelectrophysiological monitoring; /
/
Prognosis
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Decharin P, Suvithayasiri S, Nivatpumin P, et al. Subpial schwannoma of the cervical spinal cord: a case report and its intraoperative finding supporting a theory of the pathogenesis of an intramedullary schwannoma[J]. Asian J Neurosurg, 2022,17(1):108-111. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748785.
[2] Gazzeri R, Telera S, Galarza M, et al. Surgical treatment of intramedullary spinal cord metastases: functional outcome and complications-a multicenter study[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2021, 44(6): 3267-3275. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-021-01491-8.
[3] Shanthanna H, Uppal V, Joshi GP, et al. Intraoperative nociception monitoring[J]. Anesthesiol Clin, 2021, 39(3): 493-506. DOI: 10.1016/j.anclin.2021.03.008.
[4] Rajappa D, Khan MM, Masapu D, et al. Multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgeries: the experience at a spine centre through years[J]. Asian Spine J, 2021, 15(6): 728-738. DOI: 10.31616/asj.2020.0400.
[5] 史玉泉, 周孝达. 实用神经病学[M]. 上海: 上海科学技术出版社, 2004: 88-89.
[6] Wang H, Zhang L, Wang H, et al. Spinal hemangioblastoma: surgical procedures, outcomes and review of the literature[J]. Acta Neurol Belg, 2021, 121(4): 973-981. DOI: 10.1007/s13760-020-01420-4.
[7] Sánchez Roldán MÁ, Moncho D, Rahnama K, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in syringomyelia surgery: a multimodal approach[J]. J Clin Med,2023,12(16):5200.DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165200.
[8] Miró Lladó J, López-Ojeda P, Pedro J, et al. Evaluation of multimodal intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during supratentorial aneurysm surgery: a comparative study[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2022, 45(3): 2161-2173. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-021-01710-2.
[9] Gupta S, Siddiqui SA, Sinha U, et al. Multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in cranial and spinal tumour surgeries: a descriptive observational study[J]. Cureus, 2023, 15(11): e49411. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49411.
[10] Tropeano MP, Rossini Z, Franzini A, et al. Multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a 10-year single center experience[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2023, 16(1): 111. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010111.
[11] Agarwal N, Shabani S, Huang J, et al. Intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery[J]. Neurol Clin, 2022, 40(2): 269-281. DOI: 10.1016/j.ncl.2021.11.006.
[12] Sangeetha RP, Bharadwaj S. KetaDex: a saviour for intraoperative multimodal neurophysiological monitoring in complex neurosurgeries[J]. Neurol India, 2021, 69(1): 187-189. DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886. 310078.
[13]Siller S, Sixta A, Tonn JC, et al. Feasibility of multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for extramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery in elderly patients[J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2023, 165(8): 2089-2099. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-023-05682-8.
[14] Li Q, Gu G, Wang L, et al. Using EMG signals to assess proximity of instruments to nerve roots during robot-assisted spinal surgery[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2022, 18(4): e2408. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2408.
[15] Bianchi F, Cursi M, Caravati H, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery can provide real-time feedback for strategic decision making[J]. Neurophysiol Clin, 2022, 52(3): 232-241. DOI: 10.1016/j.neucli.2021.12.006.
[16] Li R, Huang ZC, Cui HY, et al. Utility of somatosensory and motor-evoked potentials in reflecting gross and fine motor functions after unilateral cervical spinal cord contusion injury[J]. Neural Regen Res, 2021, 16(7): 1323-1330. DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.301486.
[17] Antkowiak L, Putz M, Sordyl R, et al. Relevance of intraoperative motor evoked potentials and D-wave monitoring for the resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors in children[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2022, 45(4): 2723-2731. DOI: 10.1007/s10143-022-01788-2.
PDF(1017 KB)
