File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Evaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery

TitleEvaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery
Authors
KeywordsAmplitude
Evoked potential
Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring
Latency
Reliability
Scoliosis
Variability
Issue Date2001
PublisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.spinejournal.com
Citation
Spine, 2001, v. 26 n. 16, p. 1772-1777 How to Cite?
AbstractStudy Design. This prospective study compared the outcomes of different evoked potential (EP) techniques for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring. Objectives. To evaluate the reliability of different EP techniques administered during scoliosis surgery. Summary of Background Data. A number of different methods of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring are available. Because each has its own advantages and limitations, multimodal spinal cord monitoring has been proposed to improve monitoring reliability. Materials and Methods. Cortical somatosensory-evoked potential (CSEP), cortical motor-evoked potential (CMEP), spinal somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP), and spinal cord-evoked potential (SCEP) were applied simultaneously to 30 patients undergoing surgical correction for spinal deformity. The presence of the EP waveforms and their reproducibilities over separate tests were compared. In addition, the monitoring outcomes were evaluated with the clinical results. Results. Of the 30 patients, CSEP waveforms were successfully recorded in 28 cases (93%), SCEP in 25 cases (83%), CMEP in 24 cases (80%), and SSEP in 21 cases (70%). Latencies of each EP technique showed no significant variability. However, amplitudes showed significant differences between different techniques. SCEP and CMEP showed clearer waveforms of greater amplitude that could be detected faster than CSEP and SSEP waveforms. SCEP and SSEP waveforms were more easily influenced by the surgical procedure. Conclusion. CSEP and CMEP are recommended for routine monitoring, so that both ascending and descending tracts are monitored. If adequate signals for either of these proposed monitoring methods cannot be easily obtained, SSEP can substitute for CSEP, whereas SCEP can substitute for CMEP.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/79475
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.439
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.459
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLuk, KDKen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHu, Yen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, YWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheung, KMCen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T07:55:06Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T07:55:06Z-
dc.date.issued2001en_HK
dc.identifier.citationSpine, 2001, v. 26 n. 16, p. 1772-1777en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0362-2436en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/79475-
dc.description.abstractStudy Design. This prospective study compared the outcomes of different evoked potential (EP) techniques for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring. Objectives. To evaluate the reliability of different EP techniques administered during scoliosis surgery. Summary of Background Data. A number of different methods of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring are available. Because each has its own advantages and limitations, multimodal spinal cord monitoring has been proposed to improve monitoring reliability. Materials and Methods. Cortical somatosensory-evoked potential (CSEP), cortical motor-evoked potential (CMEP), spinal somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP), and spinal cord-evoked potential (SCEP) were applied simultaneously to 30 patients undergoing surgical correction for spinal deformity. The presence of the EP waveforms and their reproducibilities over separate tests were compared. In addition, the monitoring outcomes were evaluated with the clinical results. Results. Of the 30 patients, CSEP waveforms were successfully recorded in 28 cases (93%), SCEP in 25 cases (83%), CMEP in 24 cases (80%), and SSEP in 21 cases (70%). Latencies of each EP technique showed no significant variability. However, amplitudes showed significant differences between different techniques. SCEP and CMEP showed clearer waveforms of greater amplitude that could be detected faster than CSEP and SSEP waveforms. SCEP and SSEP waveforms were more easily influenced by the surgical procedure. Conclusion. CSEP and CMEP are recommended for routine monitoring, so that both ascending and descending tracts are monitored. If adequate signals for either of these proposed monitoring methods cannot be easily obtained, SSEP can substitute for CSEP, whereas SCEP can substitute for CMEP.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.spinejournal.comen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofSpineen_HK
dc.subjectAmplitudeen_HK
dc.subjectEvoked potentialen_HK
dc.subjectIntraoperative spinal cord monitoringen_HK
dc.subjectLatencyen_HK
dc.subjectReliabilityen_HK
dc.subjectScoliosisen_HK
dc.subjectVariabilityen_HK
dc.titleEvaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgeryen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0887-9869&volume=26&issue=16&spage=1772&epage=1777&date=2001&atitle=Evaluation+of+various+evoked+potential+techniques+for+spinal+cord+monitoring+during+scoliosis+surgeryen_HK
dc.identifier.emailLuk, KDK:hcm21000@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailHu, Y:yhud@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailCheung, KMC:cheungmc@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLuk, KDK=rp00333en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityHu, Y=rp00432en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, KMC=rp00387en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/00007632-200108150-00008en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid11493849-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0035881440en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros71304en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0035881440&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume26en_HK
dc.identifier.issue16en_HK
dc.identifier.spage1772en_HK
dc.identifier.epage1777en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000170501300007-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLuk, KDK=7201921573en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHu, Y=7407116091en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, YW=36247941700en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, KMC=7402406754en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats