Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring During Spinal Cord Stimulation Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the state of literature regarding the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spinal cord stimulator surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the use of IONM during spinal cord stimulation (SCS) surgery was performed using the following three data bases: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. Research techniques included systematic research following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol by Cochrane, and backward searching. Qualitative analysis of included articles was performed using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies assessment tool. Direction of effect, consistency across studies, and cost-effectiveness were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 15 records were identified through data base searching. All records used IONM methods under general anesthesia for guidance of epidural lead placement. IONM techniques used for determining lateralization in the found articles were compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) (n = 8), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) (n = 3) or both (n = 4). Motor evoked potentials were used in three trials for neuroprotection purposes. Two studies were comparative, and 12 were noncomparative. CONCLUSIONS: We found a good body of level II evidence that using IONM during SCS surgery is a valid alternative to awake surgery and may even be superior regarding pain management, cost-effectiveness, and postoperative neurologic deficits. In direct comparison, the found evidence suggested using CMAP provided more consistently favorable results than using SSEP for midline placement of epidural leads under general anesthesia. Selection of IONM modality should be made on the basis of pathophysiology of disease, individual IONM experience, and the individual patient.

Intraoperative Motor Evoked Responses to Double-Train Paradigm Stimulation for Guiding Lead Placement and Postoperative Programming in Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of using motor evoked responses to intraoperative double-train stimulation to guide lead placement and matching of intraoperative contacts with postoperative electrode programming in spinal cord stimulation for pain performed under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included a series of 20 consecutive patients with refractory pain operated on under general anesthesia. Either percutaneous or paddle leads were implanted and positioned according to the intraoperative mapping results. Neurophysiologic mapping was performed with a double-train stimulation paradigm (intertrain interval of 60 milliseconds, three to five cathodal pulses with 0.5-millisecond pulse duration, and within-train interstimulus intervals of 2-4 milliseconds). The sites where dorsal column responses of the targeted dermatomes were detected were considered optimal for lead placement (intraoperative best contacts). Following spinal cord stimulator (SCS) lead placement, blinded postoperative programming of electrode contacts was matched with the intraoperative best contacts and the pain-paresthesia overlap for the trial phase. A binominal test was used as a statistical method; pre- and postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) after three months was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients underwent spinal cord stimulation trial for intractable pain. Of these, ten patients (66%) had a successful trial and received permanent implants; one patient had a successful trial but was never intended to be implanted because of her poor health condition; four patients (26%) had an unsuccessful trial, leading to trial electrode explantation; and five patients had already had an implant with percutaneous leads and therefore underwent electrode revision, of whom four patients received paddle leads. In 18 of the 20 operated patients (90%), we found a match between the best intraoperative contacts and the postoperatively programmed contacts (significantly better than chance, p = 8.2 × 10-15). In 90% of the patients, a pain-paresthesia overlap of 100% was found. In the remaining two patients (10%), the postoperatively best programmed contacts were one contact away from the intraoperative neurophysiologic best contact. A mean preoperative NRS score of 8.2 (variance) and a mean follow-up NRS score after three months of 3.6 (variance) were obtained for all patients with implants. CONCLUSION: In this proof-of-concept study, we were able to demonstrate that SCS lead placement using a double-train stimulation paradigm performed under general anesthesia is a safe and feasible technique, offering reliable prediction of contacts for postoperative programming and excellent pain-paresthesia coverage.