ArticleAsian journal of neurosurgery
Analysis of 1014 consecutive operative cases to determine the utility of intraoperative neurophysiological data.
Article in Asian journal of neurosurgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) during neurosurgical procedures has become the standard of care at tertiary care medical centers. While prospective data regarding the clinical utility of IOM are conspicuously lacking, retrospective analyses continue to provide useful information regarding surgeon responses to reported waveform changes.
methodsData regarding clinical presentation, operative course, IOM, and postoperative neurological examination were compiled from a database of 1014 cranial and spinal surgical cases at a tertiary care medical center from 2005 to 2011. IOM modalities utilized included somatosensory evoked potentials, transcranial motor evoked potentials, pedicle screw stimulation, and electromyography. Surgeon responses to changes in IOM waveforms were recorded.
resultsChanges in IOM waveforms indicating potential injury were present in 87 of 1014 cases (8.6%). In 23 of the 87 cases (26.4%), the surgeon responded by repositioning the patient (n = 12), repositioning retractors (n = 1) or implanted instrumentation (n = 9), or by stopping surgery (n = 1). Loss of IOM waveforms predicted postoperative neurological deficit in 10 cases (11.5% of cases with IOM changes).
conclusionsIn the largest IOM series to date, we report that the surgeon responded by appropriate interventions in over 25% of cases during which there were IOM indicators of potential harm to neural structures. Prospective studies remain to be undertaken to adequately evaluate the utility of IOM in changing surgeon behavior. Our data is in agreement with previous observations in indicating a trend that supports the continued use of IOM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.