Advertisement

The role of intra-operative neuroelectrophysiological monitoring in single-level approach selective dorsal rhizotomy

  • Bo XiaoEmail author
  • Shlomi Constatntini
  • Samuel R. Browd
  • Qijia Zhan
  • Wenbin Jiang
  • Rong Mei
Focus Session
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Selective dorsal rhizotomy via a single-level approach (SL-SDR) to treat spasticity 100% relies on the interpretation of results from the intra-operative neuroelectrophysiological monitoring. The current study is to investigate the role EMG interpretation plays during SL-SDR procedure with regard to the selection of nerve rootlets for partially sectioning in pediatric cases with spastic cerebral palsy (CP).

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted in pediatric patients with spastic CP undergone our modified rhizotomy protocol-guided SL-SDR from May 2016 to Mar. 2019 in our hospital. Our study focused on intra-operative EMG interpretation and its correlation with pre-op evaluation results, and dorsal rootlet selection difference when data of our intra-operative EMG recordings interpreted using different rhizotomy protocols.

Results

Clinical and intra-operative neuroelectrophysiological monitoring data of a total of 318 consecutive cases were reviewed, which include 231 boys and 87 girls with 32 hemiplegias, 161 diplegias, and 125 quadriplegias. Age at the time of SL-SDR in those cases was between 3.0–14.0 (5.9 ± 1.9) years. The number of targeted muscle ranged from 2 to 8 over these cases (the muscle in lower limbs with its pre-op muscle tone ≥ 2 grade, Modified Ashworth scale). Among 21,728 nerve rootlets tested (68.3 ± 8.2/case), 6272 (28.9%) were identified sphincter related by our intra-operative neuromonitoring. In the rest of 15,456 (48.6 ± 7.6/case) nerve rootlets which neuromonitoring suggested associated with lower limbs, 11,009 were taken as the dorsal ones (34.6 ± 7.4/case). A total of 3370 (10.6 ± 4.7/case) rootlets matched our rhizotomy criteria with 3061 (9.6 ± 4.1/case) sectioned 50% and 309 (1.0 ± 1.0/case) cut 75%. The rhizotomy ratio (partially transected nerve rootlets/all dorsal rootlets associated with lower limbs in a particular case) was 15.8%, 22.3%, 33.4%, 41.8%, and 45.7% across cases with their pro-op GMFCS level from I to V, respectively. Rootlets required 75% cut had a tendency to increase as well in our cases with their pro-op GMFCS level from I to V, which comprising 1.5%, 4.8%, 8.5%, 14.1%, and 15.2% of all rootlets transected, respectively. The muscle tone of 2068 targeted muscles in these cases at the time of 3 weeks after the SL-SDR was revealed a significant decrease when compared to pre-op (1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.7 ± 0.6). Further investigation to compare our rootlet selection with the one guided by the traditional rhizotomy criteria using our intro-operative EMG recordings in 318 cases, revealed that the overlap ratio had a tendency to increase in cases when their pre-op GMFCS level increased (39.5%, 41.3%, 52.2%, 54.1%, and 62.8% in cases with levels I–V, respectively). While our modified rhizotomy protocol successfully identified 2–23 rootlets for sectioning in all of our 318 cases, the traditional rhizotomy protocol failed to distinguish any for cutting in about 20% of cases with their pre-op GMFCS levels I and II.

Conclusions

The rhizotomy criteria fully rely on the EMG interpretation making intra-operative neuroelectrophysiological monitoring crucial when SDR is performed via a single-level approach. Our modified rhizotomy protocol is feasible, safe, and effective to guide SL-SDR to treat all types of spastic CP cases by decreasing muscle tone in particular spastic muscle groups in their lower limbs. Data of EMG responses during SL-SDR procedure and as well as the clinical outcomes based on their interpretation could help clinicians to further understand how neuronal circuits work in the spinal cord of these patients.

Keywords

Spastic cerebral palsy Dorsal rhizotomy Intra-operative neurophysiology EMG interpretation 

Notes

Funding information

This study was funded by Shanghai Hospital Development Center (grant number 16CR3090B) and Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (grant number 18411962600).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Park TS, Johnston JM (2006) Surgical techniques of selective dorsal rhizotomy for spastic cerebral palsy. Neurosurg Focus 21(2):e7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bales J, Apkon S, Osorio M, Kinney G, Robison RA, Hooper E, Browd S (2016) Infra-conus single-level laminectomy for selective dorsal rhizotomy: technical advance. PediatrNeurosurg 51(6):284–291.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000448046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhan Q, Tang L, Wang Y, Xiao B, Shen M, Jiang S, Mei R, Lyu Z (2019) Feasibility and effectiveness of a newly modified protocol-guided selective dorsal rhizotomy via single-level approach to treat spastic hemiplegia in pediatric cases with cerebral palsy. Childs Nerv Syst:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-019-04194-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fasano VA, Broggi G (1989) Functional posterior Rhizotomy. In: Park TS, Phillips LH, Peacock WJ (eds) Management of spasticity in cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery state of the art reviews, vol 4. Hanley and Belfus, Philadelphia, pp 409–412Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graham D, Aquilina K, Cawker S, Paget S, Wimalasundera N (2016) Single-level selective dorsal rhizotomy for spastic cerebral palsy. J Spine Surg 2(3):195–201.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2016.08.08 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peacock WJ, Arens LJ (1982) Selective posterior rhizotomy for the relief of spasticity in cerebral palsy. S Afr Med J 62(4):119–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gul SM, Steinbok P, McLeod K (1999) Long-term outcome after selective posterior rhizotomy in children with spastic cerebral palsy. PediatrNeurosurg 31(2):84–95.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000028839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langerak NG, Lamberts RP, Fieggen AG, Peter JC, Peacock WJ, Vaughan CL (2007) Selective dorsal rhizotomy: long-term experience from Cape Town. Childs Nerv Syst 23(9):1003–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-007-0383-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ou C, Kent S, Miller S, Steinbok P (2010) Selective dorsal rhizotomy in children: comparison of outcomes after single-level versus multi-level laminectomy technique. Can J NeurosciNurs 32(3):17–24Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fasano VA, Broggi G, Zeme S (1988) Intraoperative electrical stimulation for functional posterior rhizotomy. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl 17:149–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Staudt LA, Nuwer MR, Peacock WJ (1995) Intraoperative monitoring during selective posterior rhizotomy: technique and patient outcome. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 97(6):296–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinbok P, Kestle JR (1996) Variation between centers in electrophysiologic techniques used in lumbosacral selective dorsal rhizotomy for spastic cerebral palsy. PediatrNeurosurg 25:233–239.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000121131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turner RP (2009) Neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring during selective dorsal rhizotomy. J Clin Neurophysiol 26(2):82–84.  https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0b013e31819f9077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Georgoulis G, Brînzeu A, Sindou M (2018) Dorsal rhizotomy for children with spastic diplegia of cerebral palsy origin: usefulness of intraoperative monitoring. J NeurosurgPediatr 22(1):89–101.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.1.PEDS17577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D'Aquino D, Moussa AA, Ammar A, Ingale H, Vloeberghs M (2018) Selective dorsal rhizotomy for the treatment of severe spastic cerebral palsy: efficacy and therapeutic durability in GMFCS grade IV and V children. Acta Neurochir 160(4):811–821.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3349-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lazareff JA, Valencia Mayoral PF (1990) Histological differences between rootlets sectioned during selective posterior rhizotomy by two surgical techniques. Acta Neurochir 105(1–2):35–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morota N, Abbott R, Kofler M, Epstein FJ, Cohen H (1995) Residual spasticity after selective posterior rhizotomy. Childs Nerv Syst 11(3):161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mittal S, Farmer JP, Poulin C, Silver K (2001) Reliability of intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in selective posterior rhizotomy. J Neurosurg 95(1):67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLaughlin J, Bjornson K, Temkin N, Steinbok P, Wright V, Reiner A, Roberts T, Drake J, O'Donnell M, Rosenbaum P, Barber J, Ferrel A (2002) Selective dorsal rhizotomy: meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials. Dev Med Child Neurol 44(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morota N (2019) Clinically practical formula for preoperatively estimating the cutting rate of the spinal nerve root in a functional posterior rhizotomy. Childs Nerv Syst 35(4):665–672.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-018-04027-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Children’s HospitalShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Dana Children’s Hospital, Tel Aviv Medical CenterTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Neurosurgery, Seattle Children’s HospitalUniversity of WashingtonWAUSA

Personalised recommendations