Intraoperative electromyographic monitoring to optimize safe lumbar pedicle screw placement - a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The foremost concern of a surgeon during pedicle screw fixation is safety. Assistive modalities, especially intraoperative electromyographic monitoring (EMG) can function as an essential tool to recognize screw malposition that compromise neural integrity, so that the screws can be repositioned immediately rather than later. We intend to study the efficacy of intraoperative EMG monitoring to detect potential pedicle breach and evaluate whether reoperation rates were significantly reduced. METHODS: Retrospectively, patients who underwent posterior stabilization with pedicle screws for various pathologies were analysed and those with screws among L1-S1 levels were shortlisted. They were divided into two groups. Group 1 included patients in whom trigger EMG (t-EMG) was used to confirm appropriate screw placement and Group 2 included those in whom it was not used. Responses to t-EMG and corresponding stimulation thresholds were recorded for Group 1 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the test was calculated. Reoperation rates due to postoperative neurologic compromise caused by malpositioned screws were compared between both the groups. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients had 3112 pedicle screws between L1-S1 levels. Among Group 1 [n = 296; Screws = 1856], 145 screws (7.8%) showed a positive response for t-EMG at stimulation thresholds ranging between 2.6 to 19.8 mA. The sensitivity and specificity of t-EMG to diagnose potential pedicle breach was found to be 93.33% and 92.88% respectively. Only one patient among Group 1 required reoperation. However, among Group 2 [n = 222; screws = 1256], six patients required reoperation. This indicated a significant decrease in the number of malpositioned screws that caused neurological compromise [p = 0.02], leading to subsequent decrease in reoperation rates [p = 0.04] among Group 1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Trigger EMG is well efficient in detecting potential pedicle screw breaches that might endanger neural integrity. In combination with palpatory and radiographic assessment, it will certainly aid safe and secure pedicle screw placement. It can also efficiently reduce reoperation rates due to neurologic compromise provoked by a malpositioned screw.

Proximal tibial morphology and risk of posterior tibial cortex impingement in patients with AA-sized Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty tibial implants.

BACKGROUND: In cases of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), an increase in anteroposterior and medial-lateral length is usually disproportional when comparing AA and A-sized tibial components. Asynchronous increments may cause tibial keel impingement leading to complications. METHODS: Radiographic measurements were performed in five patients with AA-sized tibial implants. The posterior cortex of proximal tibia had two angles recorded as ∠ M1 and ∠ M2. The minimum distance between the tibial component keel and outer margin of the posterior tibial cortex (mDKC) was measured, and the correlation between the preoperative posterior slope angle (PSA), ∠ M1, and mDKC was analyzed. RESULTS: All patients showed an acceptable component positioning. Only one patient had an mDKC of < 4 mm that fulfilled the criteria for the posterior tibial cortex at risk. The patient had an increased PSA and ∠ M1 compared to other patients. A negative correlation was found between preoperative PSA and mDKC (r = - 0.935, p = 0.0193); and ∠ M1 and mDKC (r = - 0.969, p = 0.0032). However, no stem tip pain, periprosthetic fracture, or component loosening were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The distance between the tibial keel and posterior tibial cortex was reduced in AA-sized patients with a large PSA and ∠M1; therefore, the risk of the tibial cortex injury should be considered.