Multimodality intraoperative monitoring during complex lumbosacral procedures: indications, techniques, and long-term follow-up review of 61 consecutive cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to examine the neurological outcomes after complex lumbosacral surgery in patients undergoing multimodality neurophysiological monitoring. METHODS: Sixty-one patients were consecutively enrolled in this study. These patients underwent complex intra- and extradural lumbosacral procedures with concomitant intraoperative electromyography (EMG) monitoring of the lower-limb muscles, external anal and urethral sphincters (EAS and EUS), and lower-limb somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs). Long-term (minimum 2-year) clinical follow-up data were obtained in all cases. Most patients were treated for spinal/spinal cord tumors (61%) or adult tethered cord syndrome (25%). Recordable lower-extremity SSEPs were reported in 54 patients (89%). New postoperative neurological deficits occurred in only three patients (4.9%), and remained persistent in only one patient (1.6%) at long-term follow-up examination. In only one of these cases was a significant decrease in SSEP amplitude detected. Spontaneous EMG activity was observed in the lower-extremity muscles and/or EAS and EUS in 51 cases (84%). Intraoperatively, EMG demonstrated activity only in the EUS in 5% of patients and only in the EAS in 28%. In seven patients (11%) spontaneous intraoperative EMG activity was observed in both the EAS and the EUS; however, in only three of these cases was EMG activity recorded in both sphincters simultaneously. In addition to spontaneously recorded EMG activity, electrically evoked EMG activity was also used as an intraoperative adjunct. A bipolar stimulating electrode was used to identify functional neural tissue before undertaking microsurgical dissection in 58 individuals (95%). In the majority of these patients, evoked EMG activity occurred either in one (33%) or in two muscles (9%) simultaneously. The presence of electrically evoked EMG activity in structures encountered during microdissection altered the plan of treatment in 24 cases (42%). CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that the combined SSEP and EMG monitoring of lower-limb muscles, EAS, and EUS is a practical and reliable method for obtaining optimal electrophysiological feedback during complex neurosurgical procedures involving the conus medullaris and cauda equina. Analysis of the results indicates that these intraoperative adjunctive modalities positively influence decision making with regard to microsurgery and reduce the risk of perioperative neurological complications. Validation of the clinical value of these approaches, however, will require further assessment in a larger prospective cohort of patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".