• Ram K Alluri, Avani S Vaishnav, Ahilan Sivaganesan, Luke Ricci, Evan Sheha, and Sheeraz A Qureshi.
• 25062Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
• Global Spine J. 2021 Mar 18: 21925682211000321.

Study DesignRetrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases.ObjectivesTo review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels.MethodsIntraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared.ResultsA total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level (P = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 (P < .03).ConclusionsIONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

5 keywords...

hide…