case review 2016
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Leah Solano
MVS 465
10 December 2015
CASE REVIEW: 10 NOVEMBER 2015
![Page 2: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
INTRODUCTION
• Two different changes in IONM signals, two different causes
• True change, by surgical manipulation
• Anesthetic change
• Anesthesia’s goals do not always coincide with our goals
![Page 3: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PATIENT, SYMPTOMS & DIAGNOSIS
• Patient: 7 y.o. female
• Halo traction prior to surgery
• No neurological deficits at time of surgery
• Diagnosis: Congenital Scoliosis
![Page 4: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
PRE-OP X-RAY
![Page 5: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
PRE-OP X-RAY
![Page 6: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
• Surgeon: Dr. Farley
• Surgical treatment plan:
• Growing Rod Placement T3-
L4
• Smith-Peterson
Osteotomies with
allograft and autograft
• Intraoperative Monitoring Requested:
• UE and LE bilateral SSEPs
• MEP and spEMG
• Responses recorded from: bilateral APB-ADM, AB, IL, VL, BF, TA, GA, AH.
• *C3 electrode had to be placed nearer to Oz due to surgical site constraints and open wounds from halo
TREATMENT PLAN
![Page 7: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
BASELINE SSEPS
![Page 8: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
BASELINE SSEPS
![Page 9: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
BASELINE MEPS
![Page 10: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
FIRST CHANGE: LOSS OF MOTORS; MEP PRE-
DEROTATION
![Page 11: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
FIRST CHANGE: LOSS
OF MOTORS
![Page 12: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
FIRST CHANGE: LOSS OF MOTORS; SIGNAL RETURN
![Page 13: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
SECOND CHANGE: ANESTHETIC
• For the majority of the procedure, anesthesia consisted of Isoflurane (0.3 MAC),
Sufentanil, and Midazolam
• Near closing anesthetic regimen was changed to a combination of Isoflurane and Nitrous
Oxide at 1.3 MAC, Sufenta turned off
• Anesthesia’s goals: analgesia, amnesia, sedation, muscle relaxation, as well as a
timely wakeup
• Surgeon’s goals: Acquisition of reliable MEPs to ensure final surgical manipulations
would not cause spinal cord insult.
• Solution: Anesthesia changed the regimen back to Isoflurane at 0.4 MAC and
Sufentanil/Midazolam, and signals regained reliability.
![Page 14: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
SECOND CHANGE: ANESTHETIC
![Page 15: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
SECOND CHANGE: ANESTHETIC; SSEP LATENCY RETURN
Iso & N20
(1.3 MAC)
Iso (0.4 MAC) &
Sufenta/Midazolam
![Page 16: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
SECOND CHANGE: ANESTHETIC
REDUCTION IN MEP AMPLITUDE
![Page 17: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
SECOND CHANGE: ANESTHETIC; MEP AMPLITUDE
RETURN
![Page 18: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
CONCLUSION
• By closing, SSEPs and MEPs were stable and reliable, EMG quiet
• Patient woke able to move all extremities
![Page 19: Case Review 2016](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022042708/587c29801a28aba0118b4f81/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Pre-op
Post-op