Search

Background: Lumbar spine surgery with or without intraoperative dural tear (DT) may contribute to postoperative subdural hematomas and/or cerebellar intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs). Here, we present two patients, one with and one without an intraoperative DT occurring during lumbar surgery, both of whom developed acute postoperative supratentorial ICHs. Case Description: Two patients developed supratentorial lobar ICH following lumbar decompressions and fusion. The first patient, without an intraoperative DT, developed multiple ICHs involving the left cerebellum and left temporal lobe. The second patient, following an L4-5 decompression/instrumented fusion involving a DT, postoperatively developed a large right frontal ICH. Conclusion: Here, two patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery with/without DT subsequently developed significant ICH.

Dear Editor, We read with interest the paper by Epstein entitled: The need to add motor evoked potential monitoring to somatosensory and electromyographic monitoring in cervical spine surgery.[1] The paper reviews the spine surgery literature regarding the use of intraoperative neural monitoring (IONM). Theoretically, IONM should alert the operative team that impending neurological injury is possible and a corrective maneuver performed to prevent such. IONM may be problematic in that it might alarm and result in an abandonment or alteration of the surgical procedure when no true neurological deficit is subsequently demonstrated (false positive). More worrisome, however, is the situation when no alert is observed and neurological injury ensued (false negative). Debate may be held with regard to the most appropriate surgical procedures for the use of IONM. Ideally, this should involve procedures in which potentially harmful maneuvers can be reversed. A classic example is deformity correction, which can be reversed if IONM suggests such. In cases in which “surgical reversal” is not possible, IONM has been shown to demonstrate true and false positives, however, studies have not demonstrated improved outcomes.[7] Many infer that IONM is associated with improved clinical results. However, it should be noted that the referenced studies compared outcomes with historical cohorts. Epstein et al.[2] reported 100 cases of IONM monitored cervical surgeries with no new neurological deficit. The historical cohort of this study included 218 patients operated in years 1985-1989, 8 of which became quadriplegic. This control population is clearly an outlier, as quadriplegia following elective cervical spine surgery for degenerative conditions is, indeed, a rarity and the rate is far less than the nearly 4% reported in the referenced study. Other studies cited by Epstein[1] show a high rate of false positives or false negatives with IONM, and low rate of true positives.[3,5,6] During degenerative cervical spine surgery, neurological injury may occur any of several phases. It may occur during induction of anesthesia with resultant hypotension, during positioning (flexion or extension) of the cervical spine in either prone or supine position, from intraoperative hypotension, and/or from direct surgical trauma. With the exception of hypotension and positioning, none of these potential causes of neurological injury are reversible. IONM, therefore can only signal that a neurological injury may have occurred, but does not afford the surgeon an enhanced opportunity to remedy or mitigate the neurological injury. When spinal cord injury occurs from direct surgical trauma, IONM serves only to document the timing of the trauma and cannot assist with altering the clinical outcome. There may then be little utility for IONM in degenerative cervical spine surgery. This conclusion has been borne out in the literature. Resnick et al.[7] reviewed the literature regarding IONM for degenerative cervical spine surgery. Their published guidelines concluded that relying on IONM changes as an indication for altering surgical procedure or administration of steroids has not been shown to reduce the incidence of neurological deterioration. The addition of IONM to degenerative cervical surgery has financial implications, however, cost-benefit analysis has not demonstrated benefit.[4] IONM is also often used for medico-legal reasons. Epstein reviewed the cervical spine surgery verdicts and determined the causes for verdicts were negligent surgery, lack of informed consent, failure to diagnose/treat, and failure to brace. She speculated that failure to adequately perform IONM may become the fifth reason for verdicts in cervical spine surgery. As the guidelines for cervical spinal surgery do not include the use of IONM,[7] and no clear algorithm for intraoperative action when IONM changes are observed, the routine use of IONM cannot serve as protection against a plaintiffs’ verdict. In the authors’ opinion, IONM in spine surgery has a definite role. This role includes intradural tumor surgery, deformity surgery, and cases in which patient positioning in and of itself poses neurological risk. IONM, however, has not been proven effective as a neuroprotective maneuver in the majority of cervical degenerative surgical procedures.