ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2024
Management Principles in a Case of True-positive Loss of Neuromonitoring Signals during Scoliosis Surgery: A Case Report.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding late-onset neurological deficit in severe rigid Scoliosis: A comprehensive review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) is essential in scoliosis surgery. This is affected by misplaced instrumentation, cord trauma, hemodynamic instability, and anesthesia. We present an irreversible loss of IOM without identifiable intra-operative cause to highlight its occurrence and discuss post-operative investigations and management. Case Report: A 14-year-old girl with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, no co-morbidities, and normal spinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) underwent posterior spinal fusion. During screw placement, bilateral motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and right somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) were lost in the legs. All screws were removed with no evidence of cortical breach. Left leg responses gradually improved, but there was no recovery of right leg SSEPs or MEPs. Subsequently, the procedure was abandoned. The patient had reduced right leg strength (3/5) and sensation with the left leg was normal. Immediate post-operative spinal MRI identified no abnormality. Computed tomography (CT) showed no cortical breach with satisfactory pedicle screw tracts. Repeat MRI (day 7) showed high T2-signal within the cord at T11 indicating ischemia. Gradual neurological recovery occurred and on day 15, repeat neurophysiology found reproducible SSEPs and MagStim MEPs. The patient underwent revision posterior fusion with single rod correction without complication and IOM was maintained. By day 24, the patient had 5/5 power and normal sensation in both legs. Good scoliosis correction was achieved and maintained at 3-year follow-up. Conclusion: This patient represents a vascular event affecting the lower spinal cord and highlights the role of sequential imaging and pre-operative neurophysiology including MagStim in deciding when to proceed with revision surgery while reducing risk using conservative techniques.
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.