• Users Online:384
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 159-166

The influence of anaesthesia on intraoperative neuromonitoring changes in high-risk spinal surgery


Department of Anaesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Correspondence Address:
Lakshmikumar Venkatraghavan
Department of Anaesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T2S8
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jnacc.jnacc_10_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring is a well-established method of detecting neurologic injuries during spine surgery. Anaesthesia, especially inhalational agents, influence motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring. The aim of our study was to compare the effect of balanced anaesthesia (BA) (intravenous plus inhalational anaesthesia) and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on the incidence of intraoperative neuromonitoring changes, interventions performed and neurological outcomes of patients following high-risk spinal surgery. Methods: After Research and Ethics Board approval, a retrospective review of 155 patients who underwent spinal surgery with MEP was performed. Data were collected on changes in MEP and/or somatosensory evoked potential, interventions performed and neurological outcomes. Patients were divided into BA and TIVA groups and data were analysed. Results: A total of 152 patients were eligible for the study (mean age 54 ± 17, male: female 45:55). A BA technique was used in 62% and TIVA in 38%. Desflurane (<0.5 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]) was used in 85% BA cases. Intraoperative neuromonitoring changes occurred in 11.8% (18/152) of cases. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of monitoring changes between BA (78%) and TIVA (22%) groups (P = 0.197). Anaesthetic or surgical interventions were performed in 12 patients, with a resolution of changes in 50% (P = 0.455). All 5 patients with persistent MEP changes had worsening of existing neurological deficits postoperatively; 8 had transient MEP changes, and 2 experienced worsening of existing neurological deficits. Conclusions: We found that intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring can be performed with both BA (MAC <0.5) and TIVA in high-risk spinal surgery with no statistical difference in the incidence of intraoperative monitoring changes.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed496    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded146    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal