{"title":"Low baseline Tc-MEP amplitude is associated with false-positive alerts in spine surgery: a ROC-based analysis across spinal pathologies.","authors":"Shuyun Jiang, Hiroki Ushirozako, Go Yoshida, Tomohiko Hasegawa, Tomohiro Banno, Hideyuki Arima, Shin Oe, Tomohiro Yamada, Koichiro Ide, Kouki Yamaguchi, Shigeru Aketa, Yukihiro Matsuyama, Yu Yamato","doi":"10.1007/s10877-026-01505-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to determine whether absolute baseline transcranial motor evoked potential (Tc-MEP) amplitude is associated with false-positive (FP) alerts during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring and to estimate pathology-specific cutoff values. We retrospectively reviewed 307 high-risk spine surgery cases monitored with Tc-MEPs from 2018 to 2020. For waveform-level analysis, 1,748 muscle waveforms from 287 FP/true-negative cases were analyzed. Alerts were defined as final amplitude ≤ 30% of baseline, and FP alerts were defined as alerts without new postoperative motor deficit. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to estimate baseline-amplitude cutoff values for FP alerts in spinal cord tumor surgery, spinal deformity surgery, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament surgery, and the pooled cohort. FP alerts occurred in 253 of 1,748 waveforms (14.5%). Baseline Tc-MEP amplitude was lower in FP than in true-negative waveforms (351 ± 533 µV vs. 604 ± 1007 µV). FP alerts were more frequent in lower-extremity recordings. Exploratory ROC-derived cutoff values were 122 µV for spinal cord tumor surgery, 180 µV for spinal deformity surgery, 160 µV for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament surgery, and 170 µV for the pooled cohort; the corresponding AUCs were 0.68, 0.56, 0.61, and 0.61, respectively. Lower baseline Tc-MEP amplitudes were associated with FP alerts. Baseline amplitude assessment may help identify low-amplitude signals that warrant optimization and cautious interpretation before percentage-based alarm criteria are applied.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-026-01505-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether absolute baseline transcranial motor evoked potential (Tc-MEP) amplitude is associated with false-positive (FP) alerts during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring and to estimate pathology-specific cutoff values. We retrospectively reviewed 307 high-risk spine surgery cases monitored with Tc-MEPs from 2018 to 2020. For waveform-level analysis, 1,748 muscle waveforms from 287 FP/true-negative cases were analyzed. Alerts were defined as final amplitude ≤ 30% of baseline, and FP alerts were defined as alerts without new postoperative motor deficit. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to estimate baseline-amplitude cutoff values for FP alerts in spinal cord tumor surgery, spinal deformity surgery, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament surgery, and the pooled cohort. FP alerts occurred in 253 of 1,748 waveforms (14.5%). Baseline Tc-MEP amplitude was lower in FP than in true-negative waveforms (351 ± 533 µV vs. 604 ± 1007 µV). FP alerts were more frequent in lower-extremity recordings. Exploratory ROC-derived cutoff values were 122 µV for spinal cord tumor surgery, 180 µV for spinal deformity surgery, 160 µV for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament surgery, and 170 µV for the pooled cohort; the corresponding AUCs were 0.68, 0.56, 0.61, and 0.61, respectively. Lower baseline Tc-MEP amplitudes were associated with FP alerts. Baseline amplitude assessment may help identify low-amplitude signals that warrant optimization and cautious interpretation before percentage-based alarm criteria are applied.
本研究旨在确定绝对基线经颅运动诱发电位(Tc-MEP)振幅是否与术中神经生理监测中的假阳性(FP)警报相关,并估计病理特异性临界值。我们回顾性分析了2018年至2020年Tc-MEPs监测的307例高危脊柱手术病例。波形级分析,分析了287例FP/真阴性病例的1748个肌肉波形。警报定义为最终振幅≤基线的30%,FP警报定义为无新的术后运动缺陷的警报。对脊髓肿瘤手术、脊柱畸形手术、后纵韧带骨化手术和合并队列中FP报警的基线振幅截止值进行了受试者操作特征分析。1748个波形中有253个出现FP警报(14.5%)。FP组Tc-MEP基线振幅低于真阴性波形组(351±533µV vs 604±1007µV)。下肢记录中FP警报更频繁。探索性roc衍生的截止值为脊髓肿瘤手术122µV,脊柱畸形手术180µV,后纵韧带骨化手术160µV,合并队列170µV;相应的auc分别为0.68、0.56、0.61和0.61。较低的Tc-MEP基线振幅与FP警报相关。基线振幅评估可能有助于识别低振幅信号,在应用基于百分比的警报标准之前,需要对其进行优化和谨慎解释。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.