Intraoperative response of the pyramidal system to surgical correction of spinal deformities of various etiologies

Objective. To assess the information value of comparing the results of formalizing intraoperative changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during surgical correction of spinal deformities of various etiologies.
Material and Methods. Study design: analysis of monocentric retrospective unselected cohort over 5 years, evidence class 2b. Surgical correction of spinal deformity under neurophysiological control was performed in 364 patients (mean age 12.80 ± 0.40 years). The scores of changes in motor evoked potentials were used to compare the pyramidal system response to surgical aggression in patients with congenital spinal deformities, idiopathic scoliosis, and systemic skeletal diseases.
Results. Basic motor responses in patients with systemic diseases of the axial skeleton are to a greater extent depressed and unstable than in those with congenital deformity and idiopathic scoliosis. On surgery completion, these differences are exacerbated. Five identified types of response of the spinal cord conduction pathways to surgical correction of spinal deformity allow comparing intraoperative  neuromonitoring results in different groups of patients. The most dangerous types of response are observed more often in patients with congenital and systemic pathologies than in those with idiopathic scoliosis.
Conclusion. The proposed method for the rank assessment of intraoperative changes in motor evoked potentials during surgical correction of spinal deformity allows comparative studies of patients’ reactions to surgical intervention in different etiological and age groups. The greatest risk of iatrogenic motor disorders in the postoperative period is observed in patients with systemic skeletal pathology.

spine deformity, spinal surgery, intraoperative neuromonitoring, pyramidal system, neurological complications

1. Riabykh SO. The choice of surgical approach for congenital spinal deformity caused by multiple vertebral malformations. Hir. Pozvonoc. 2014;(2):21–28. In Russian. DOI: 10.14531/ss2014.2.21-28.

2. Riabykh SO, Savin DM. Possibilities of Type III kyphoses surgical treatment using «Pedicle subtraction osteotomy» technique. Genij Ortopedii. 2013;(1):120–123. In Russian.

3. Riabykh SO, Shusharina VL, Ochirova PV, Tret’iakova AN, Riabykh TV. Perioperative risk reduction for vertebrologic surgeries in patients with hereditary diseases of the connective tissue. Genij Orthopedii. 2015;(4):48–52. In Russian. DOI: 10.18019/1028-4427-2015-4-48-52.

4. Schwab F, Blondel B, Chay E, Demakakos J, Lenke L, Tropiano P, Ames C, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman S, Farcy JP, Lafage V. The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification. Neurosurgery. 2014;74:112–120. DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000182o.

5. Gibson PR. Anaesthesia for correction of scoliosis in children. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2004;32:548–559. DOI: 10.1177/0310057X0403200413.

6. Koruk S, Mizrak A, Kaya Ugur B, Ilhan O, Baspinar O, Oner U. Propofol/dexmedetomidine and propofol/ketamine combinations for anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing transcatheter atrial septal defect closure: a prospective randomized study. Clin Ther. 2010;32:701–709. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.04.010.

7. Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, Diab M, Gregory GA. The effect of age on motor evoked potentials in children under propofol/isoflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:316–321. DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000226142.15746.b2.

8. Saifutdinov MS, Ryabykh SO, Savin DM, Tretyakova AN. Formalizing the results of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the motor pathways into the spinal cord during the surgical correction of spinal deformities. Vestnik khirurgii im. I.I. Grekova. 2018;177(1):49–53. In Russian. DOI:10.24884/0042-4625-2018-177-1-49-53.

9. Shein AP, Krivoruchko GA, Ryabykh SO. Reactivity and resistance of the spinal structures when performing instrumental correction of spinal deformities. Rossiiskii fiziologicheskii zhurnal im. I.M. Sechenova. 2016;102(12):1495–1506. In Russian.

10. Levshankov AI. Monitoring and Management of Neuromuscular Conduction During Surgical Operations. St. Petersburg, 2014. In Russian.

11. Jameson LC. Transcranial motor evoked potentials. In: Monitoring the Nervous System for Anesthesiologists and Other Health Care Professional, ed. by A. Koht, T.B. Sloan, J.R. Toleikis. New York; London, 2012;27–45. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0308-1_2.

12. Khit MA, Kolesov SV, Kolbovskiy DA, Morozova NS. The role of the neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring to prevention of postoperative neurological complication in the surgical treatment of scoliosis. Nervno-mysecnye bolezni. 2014;(2):36–41. In Russian. DOI: 10.17650/2222-8721-2014-0-2-36-41.

13. Belova AN, Baldova SN, Kazmin AV. Use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in the case of surgical intervention in spinal column and spinal cord. Voprosy Travmatologii i Ortopedii. 2014;(2):21–25. In Russian.

14. Gaidyshev IP. Data Analysis and Processing: A Special Reference Book. St. Petersburg, 2001. In Russian.

15. Shein АP, Sayphutdinov МS, Skripnikov АА, Krivoruchko GА, Ryabykh SО. Correlation of the intra-operative neuromonitoring data and emg-characteristics of post-operative motor deficit in patients with spinal deformities. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2017;(4):19–23. In Russian. DOI:10.17116/hirurgia2017419-23.

16. Kuzmina VA, Syundyukov AR, Nikolaev NS, Mikhailova IV, Nikolaeva AV. Effectiveness of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. Pediatric Traumatology, Orthopaedics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2016;4(4)33–40. In Russian. DOI: 10.17816/PTORS4433-40.