Adhesive surface electrodes versus needle-based neuromonitoring in lumbar spinal surgery.

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2024-06-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_394_2024
Renuka Chintapalli, Dhiraj Pangal, Maria-Jose Cavagnaro, Maria Isabel Barros Guinle, Thomas Johnstone, John Ratliff
{"title":"Adhesive surface electrodes versus needle-based neuromonitoring in lumbar spinal surgery.","authors":"Renuka Chintapalli, Dhiraj Pangal, Maria-Jose Cavagnaro, Maria Isabel Barros Guinle, Thomas Johnstone, John Ratliff","doi":"10.25259/SNI_394_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The relative safety and more widespread utility of an adhesive surface electrode-based neuromonitoring (ABM) system may reduce the time and cost of traditional needle-based neuromonitoring (NBM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort review included one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures (2019-2023). The primary variables studied included were time (in minutes) from patient entry into the operating room (OR) to incision, time from patient entry into the OR to closure, and time from incision to closure. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to compare the outcomes between the ABM (31 patients) and NBM (51 patients) modalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found no significant differences in the time from patient entry into the OR to incision (ABM: 71.8, NBM: 70.3, <i>P</i> = 0.70), time from patient entry into the OR to closure (ABM: 284.2, NBM: 301.7, <i>P</i> = 0.27), or time from incision to closure (ABM: 212.4, NBM: 231.4, <i>P</i> = 0.17) between the two groups. Further, no patients from either group required reoperation for mal-positioned instrumentation, and none sustained a new postoperative neurological deficit. The ABM approach did, however, allow for a reduction in neurophysiologist-workforce and neuromonitoring costs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The introduction of the ABM system did not lower surgical time but did demonstrate similar efficacy and clinical outcomes, with reduced clinical invasiveness, neurophysiologist-associated workforce, and overall neuromonitoring cost compared to NBM.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11225542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_394_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The relative safety and more widespread utility of an adhesive surface electrode-based neuromonitoring (ABM) system may reduce the time and cost of traditional needle-based neuromonitoring (NBM).

Methods: This retrospective cohort review included one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures (2019-2023). The primary variables studied included were time (in minutes) from patient entry into the operating room (OR) to incision, time from patient entry into the OR to closure, and time from incision to closure. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to compare the outcomes between the ABM (31 patients) and NBM (51 patients) modalities.

Results: We found no significant differences in the time from patient entry into the OR to incision (ABM: 71.8, NBM: 70.3, P = 0.70), time from patient entry into the OR to closure (ABM: 284.2, NBM: 301.7, P = 0.27), or time from incision to closure (ABM: 212.4, NBM: 231.4, P = 0.17) between the two groups. Further, no patients from either group required reoperation for mal-positioned instrumentation, and none sustained a new postoperative neurological deficit. The ABM approach did, however, allow for a reduction in neurophysiologist-workforce and neuromonitoring costs.

Conclusion: The introduction of the ABM system did not lower surgical time but did demonstrate similar efficacy and clinical outcomes, with reduced clinical invasiveness, neurophysiologist-associated workforce, and overall neuromonitoring cost compared to NBM.

腰椎手术中粘附性表面电极与针式神经监测器的比较。
背景:基于粘合剂表面电极的神经监测(ABM)系统的相对安全性和广泛实用性可减少传统针式神经监测(NBM)的时间和成本:基于粘合剂表面电极的神经监测(ABM)系统相对安全且应用更广泛,可减少传统针式神经监测(NBM)的时间和成本:这项回顾性队列研究包括一、二级经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术(2019-2023年)。研究的主要变量包括患者从进入手术室(OR)到切口的时间(分钟)、患者从进入手术室到关闭的时间以及从切口到关闭的时间。我们进行了单变量和双变量分析,以比较 ABM(31 名患者)和 NBM(51 名患者)模式的结果:我们发现,两组患者从进入手术室到切口的时间(ABM:71.8,NBM:70.3,P = 0.70)、从进入手术室到闭合的时间(ABM:284.2,NBM:301.7,P = 0.27)或从切口到闭合的时间(ABM:212.4,NBM:231.4,P = 0.17)均无明显差异。此外,两组患者中没有人因器械位置不正而需要再次手术,也没有人术后出现新的神经功能缺损。不过,ABM 方法确实减少了神经电生理学家的劳动力和神经监测成本:结论:与 NBM 相比,ABM 系统的引入并没有缩短手术时间,但确实显示出相似的疗效和临床结果,同时降低了临床侵入性、神经电生理学家相关劳动力和总体神经监测成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信