MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rare True-Positive Isolated SSEP Loss With Preservation of MEPs Response During Scoliosis Correction

2013· article· en· W78685798 on OpenAlexaff
Félix Tomé-Bermejo, Enrique Garrido, Michael A. Glasby, Sharon Thinn

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSomatosensory evoked potentialScoliosisSpinal cordSurgerySpinal fusionMagnetic resonance imagingAnesthesiaDeformityRachisCordIdiopathic scoliosisRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. OBJECTIVE: To report a case of a true-positive isolated somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) loss with preservation of motor evoked potential (MEP) response during scoliosis correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Combined intraoperative monitoring uses SSEPs and MEPs to decrease the probability of observing false-negative events. In combination, SSEPs and MEPs have become a standard of care for spinal deformity surgery. However, literature review reveals several cases of false-negative response with combined SSEPs and MEPs, raising the contention that intraoperative monitoring does not reliably identify all isolated selective spinal cord dysfunction. METHODS: A 15-year-old female patient with a 65° right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis underwent correction and posterior spinal fusion with segmental pedicle screw instrumentation. After capture and derotation of the left concave rod, left-sided irreversible SSEP loss occurred whereas MEPs remained unchanged. After excluding systemic factors, anesthetic causes, or technical fault, deformity correction was released and instrumentation removed. No cortical breach was reported during pedicle screw removal. RESULTS: Postoperatively, no clinical sensory or motor deficit was present; computed tomography demonstrated a burst left pedicle at T10 with the medial pedicle wall fragment in direct contact with the dorsal spinal cord. Magnetic resonance imaging excluded cord edema or other evidence of injury. Three days after surgery, intraoperative monitoring showed delayed latencies and amplitudes of the left SSEP. An uneventful reinsertion of instrumentation and correction excluding the left T10 pedicle screw was performed 7 days after the initial surgery. CONCLUSION: This case report provides evidence of selective posterior spinal cord dysfunction with sparing of the anterior columns immediately after a correction maneuver and emphasizes the importance of simultaneous SSEP and MEP monitoring. To the authors' knowledge, there is no previous report of a true-positive isolated SSEP loss with preservation of MEP response during scoliosis correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207