Accuracy of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in the Diagnosis of Intraoperative Neurological Decline in the Setting of Spinal Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: In an effort to prevent intraoperative neurological injury during spine surgery, the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has increased significantly in recent years. Using IONM, spinal cord function can be evaluated intraoperatively by recording signals from specific nerve roots, motor tracts, and sensory tracts. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies to evaluate the efficacy of IONM among patients undergoing spine surgery for any indication. METHODS: The current systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) and was registered on PROSPERO. A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS for all studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of neuromonitoring, including somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP), motor evoked potential (MEP) and electromyography (EMG), either on their own or in combination (multimodal). Studies were included if they reported raw numbers for True Positives (TP), False Negatives (FN), False Positives (FP) and True Negative (TN) either in a 2 × 2 contingency table or in text, and if they used postoperative neurologic exam as a reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated to evaluate the overall efficacy of each modality type using a bivariate model adapted by Reitsma et al, for all spine surgeries and for individual disease groups and regions of spine. The risk of bias (ROB) of included studies was assessed using the quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: A total of 163 studies were included; 52 of these studies with 16,310 patients reported data for SSEP, 68 studies with 71,144 patients reported data for MEP, 16 studies with 7888 patients reported data for EMG and 69 studies with 17,968 patients reported data for multimodal monitoring. The overall sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC for SSEP were 71.4% (95% CI 54.8-83.7), 97.1% (95% CI 95.3-98.3), 41.9 (95% CI 24.1-73.1) and .899, respectively; for MEP, these were 90.2% (95% CI 86.2-93.1), 96% (95% CI 94.3-97.2), 103.25 (95% CI 69.98-152.34) and .927; for EMG, these were 48.3% (95% CI 31.4-65.6), 92.9% (95% CI 84.4-96.9), 11.2 (95% CI 4.84-25.97) and .773; for multimodal, these were found to be 83.5% (95% CI 81-85.7), 93.8% (95% CI 90.6-95.9), 60 (95% CI 35.6-101.3) and .895, respectively. Using the QUADAS-2 ROB analysis, of the 52 studies reporting on SSEP, 13 (25%) were high-risk, 10 (19.2%) had some concerns and 29 (55.8%) were low-risk; for MEP, 8 (11.7%) were high-risk, 21 had some concerns and 39 (57.3%) were low-risk; for EMG, 4 (25%) were high-risk, 3 (18.75%) had some concerns and 9 (56.25%) were low-risk; for multimodal, 14 (20.3%) were high-risk, 13 (18.8%) had some concerns and 42 (60.7%) were low-risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that all neuromonitoring modalities have diagnostic utility in successfully detecting impending or incident intraoperative neurologic injuries among patients undergoing spine surgery for any condition, although it is clear that the accuracy of each modality differs.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42023384158.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,069 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,064 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».