‘.What Are The Equipments For Spinal Monitoring？

Spinal monitoring plays a critical role in modern healthcare, especially during surgeries involving the spine. The spine not only supports the body’s weight but also protects the spinal cord and surrounding nerves. Intraoperative spinal monitoring is essential for assessing the impact of surgery on a patient’s nervous system, providing real-time data that allows surgeons to make informed decisions and adjust their surgical strategy as needed. This monitoring is vital for minimizing surgical risks and protecting the patient’s nervous system.

In addition to helping surgeons avoid nerve tissue damage, intraoperative spinal monitoring provides real-time assessments of surgical outcomes. Monitoring the activity of the spinal cord and nerves ensures any potential issues are quickly identified and corrected, enhancing both safety and effectiveness. The data collected during spinal monitoring is also valuable for developing personalized postoperative rehabilitation plans, promoting quicker patient recovery.

Basic Principles of Intraoperative Spinal Monitoring

Intraoperative spinal monitoring is a complex and precise technique that involves several critical processes, including signal acquisition, data analysis, and real-time feedback.

1. Signal Acquisition: Intraoperative spinal monitoring involves capturing signals from the patient’s spinal cord and nervous system. The signals are typically obtained through electrophysiological monitoring, neurophysiological instruments, or imaging devices. Common systems include spinal evoked potentials (SEP) and motor evoked potentials (MEP). SEP systems assess sensory nerve function by stimulating the nervous system, while MEP systems evaluate motor function by monitoring muscle activity. These devices provide real-time assessments of nerve function, helping surgeons detect and mitigate potential risks.
2. Data Analysis and Interpretation: Once acquired, the signals are transmitted to monitoring systems for real-time analysis. The data helps surgeons assess nerve function, identify risks, and make informed adjustments during surgery. Results typically include nerve function status, potential risk factors, and suggested actions.
3. Real-Time Feedback: The feedback loop is vital, as monitoring results are continuously updated and communicated to the surgical team. This real-time data allows for prompt corrective measures, ensuring nerve protection and surgical success.

Common Types of Spinal Monitoring Devices

Various devices are used in spinal monitoring, each serving distinct functions:

1. Electrophysiological Monitoring Devices: SEP and MEP systems are the most commonly used, offering high sensitivity and real-time monitoring. SEP devices measure sensory nerve function, while MEP devices monitor motor function through muscle activity.
2. Neurophysiological Monitoring Instruments: These include multichannel electroencephalography (EEG) and brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) systems. Multichannel EEG monitors brain electrical activity, while BAEP systems assess auditory nerve function. Both provide comprehensive assessments of neural activity.
3. Imaging Devices: X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs offer high-resolution imaging of spinal structures, guiding surgical procedures and evaluating outcomes. These devices provide clear anatomical details that help surgeons precisely locate surgical targets.

Characteristics and Advantages of Different Spinal Monitoring Devices

Different devices offer specific advantages based on their intended application:

1. Electrophysiological Monitoring Devices: Known for their high sensitivity, these devices deliver real-time data with great accuracy. SEP and MEP systems are flexible and adaptable, providing precise information crucial for safeguarding nerve function.
2. Neurophysiological Monitoring Instruments: These offer a broad range of monitoring capabilities, covering various aspects of nerve function, including brain electrical activity and auditory responses. Their diverse functionality makes them invaluable in comprehensive nerve assessments.
3. Imaging Devices: Offering high-resolution visualization, imaging tools like X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs provide comprehensive insights into spinal anatomy. They assist in identifying subtle structural changes and precisely targeting surgical sites, reducing risks and enhancing surgical success.

Introduction to Forethought’s Spinal Monitoring Technology and Devices

Forethought is at the forefront of spinal monitoring technology with its advanced solutions in electrophysiological monitoring, neurophysiological instruments, and imaging devices. Their innovative systems are designed to provide precise and reliable data, supporting the safety and effectiveness of spinal surgeries. Forethought’s technology emphasizes real-time, high-quality monitoring, making it a critical tool for both intraoperative and postoperative care.

Referencias

1. MacDonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C. “Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring – A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring.” Clinical Neurophysiology. 2013;124(12):2291-2316. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.025.
2. Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Grob D, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D. “Multimodal intraoperative monitoring: An overview and proposal of a concept.” European Spine Journal. 2007;16(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0409-1.
3. Nuwer MR. “Intraoperative monitoring of neural function.” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 1993;10(4):355-376. doi: 10.1097/00004691-199307000-00001.
4. Szelenyi A, Kothbauer KF, Deletis V. “Neurophysiological criteria for intraoperative diagnosis of corticospinal tract injury.” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;24(5):386-393. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e31814a55f1.
5. Sala F, Lanteri P. “Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinal surgery: A review and the state of the art.” European Spine Journal. 2003;12(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0583-y.
6. Leppanen RE, Spoor AB. “Current concepts in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery.” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2005;87(2):473-487. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00221.
7. Nuwer MR. “Spinal cord monitoring with somatosensory techniques.” Spine. 1992;17(5):600-611. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199205000-00002.
8. Kothbauer KF. “Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in children: Why, when, and how.” Child’s Nervous System. 2007;23(5):527-531. doi: 10.1007/s00381-006-0328-9.
9. Deletis V, Sala F. “Intraoperative monitoring of the functional integrity of the motor pathways.” Neurosurgery Clinics of North America. 2001;12(4):657-669. doi: 10.1016/S1042-3680(18)30053-1.
10. Hadley MN, Shank CD, Rozzelle CJ. “Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine.” Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 2014;21(1):1-10. doi: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14270.
11. Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, Dettori JR. “The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery.” Global Spine Journal. 2017;7(3 Suppl):104S-115S. doi: 10.1177/2192568217707164.
12. Martinez-Lage JF, Pérez-Espejo MA, Poza M, Piqueras C. “The role of intraoperative monitoring in the management of scoliosis.” European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology. 2000;10(1):15-19. doi: 10.1007/s005900070029.
13. Helbig GM, Moquin RR, Bendok BR, et al. “Intraoperative monitoring and electrophysiological mapping of spinal cord function: Indications and techniques.” Journal of Neurotrauma. 2005;22(7):798-808. doi: 10.1089/neu.2005.22.798.
14. Romstöck J, Strauss C, Fahlbusch R. “Continuous motor tract monitoring during cerebral and spinal surgery.” Neurosurgery. 2000;46(3):680-691. doi: 10.1097/00006123-200003000-00022.
15. MacDonald DB. “Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring.” Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2002;19(5):416-429. doi: 10.1097/00004691-200210000-00004.