EMG Monitoring During Minimally Invasive Fusion of the SI Joint

EMG Monitoring During Minimally Invasive Fusion of the SI Joint

Electromyography in the Operating Room

EMG nerve monitoring in lumbar surgery makes up a large percentage of cases monitored every year. Using EMG nerve monitoring during SI joint fusions seems to be less utilized, even though the option is available to surgeons using nerve monitoring for their lumbar cases.

EMG from a surgical neurophysiologist perspective is a love/hate relationship. It can give useful information in certain cases, like during suboccipital craniotomies, pedicle screw stimulation, and thyroidectomies, but is more art than science on cases like monitoring the RLN during ACDF cases.

So when we look to expand the use of monitoring modalities to different case types, we need to answer the questions "can we" and "should we."

One such instance is SI Joint surgery.

Using EMG Nerve Monitoring for Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint

Knowing the difficulty of identifying sacral foramen on imaging and the variations seen in sacral bones, it made me wonder why nerve monitoring would not be used more often. It seems that it could be as useful, or even more useful, during the searching phase when placing the implant than even than just stimulating the final position. If the surgeon’s visual guidance is reliant on less than optimal conditions, adding in this physiological test should allow for the surgeon to make a more informed decision.

So I went hunting for an article in hopes to find something useful and came across the following article from Woods et al.

Woods, M., Birkholz, D., MacBarb, R., Capobianco, R., and Woods, A. (2014). Utility of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring during Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint. Advances in Orthopedics, 2014, pp.1-7.

Their Findings

Right off the bat… yes, this is a small, retrospective study. But I do like how they are using nerve monitoring through different stages of the implantation process. The intensities used were created by looking at animal studies and stimulation intensities used for EMG nerve monitoring in lumbar surgeries, but are probably best guesses and seemed reasonable to me at this point in time.

In their findings, they stated “111 implants resulted in 8 true positives, 3 false positives, 2 false negatives, and 98 true negatives. These results provide sensitivity and specificity rates of 80% and 97%, respectively.”

But if you look at the descriptions of the false negatives and false positives, there are lessons to be learned there. For the false negatives, the first case demonstrates the usefulness of EMG nerve monitoring in a “searching” mode to better identify problems. The second case is questionable to point to the EMG nerve monitoring as the problem. For the 3 false positives found in the single patient, the limitation of EMG nerve monitoring in that patient was very real. As it turns out, there seemed to be an anatomical variant

For the 3 false positives found in the single patient, the limitation of EMG nerve monitoring in that patient was very real. As it turns out, there seemed to be an anatomical variant causing a problem in the sensitivity of the modality. Knowing that this surgery is in an area where anatomical variations are not uncommon, the surgical neurophysiologist and surgeon would be able to make a better judgment of the recordings as it relates to their other measures (fluoroscopy, experience, etc) and tilt towards a greater reliance on those in cases where there is a known variation that might cause a challenge to EMG nerve monitoring (like dysplasia).

While I wish the author would have gone into a little more detail on the false-negative cases, and I really wish they were able to include a larger patient population, the paper did give some guide to utilizing EMG nerve monitoring for minimally invasive sacral iliac surgery that I hope will spark further study and implementation.

Minimally Invasive Surgery Video

For those less familiar with the surgical procedure, here’s a video of one type of minimally invasive system to fuse the sacroiliac joint:

To learn more about IONM, visit www.IntraoperativeNeuromonitoring.com.

W. Bryan Wilent, PhD, DABNM, FASNM

Intraoperative Neuromonitoring (IONM) | Neuromodulation Innovation | Medicolegal Expert

4y

One key thing to remember from this paper is that it calculates the Sens/Spec of tEMG for putative nerve proximity, not neurologic deficit. The Sensitivity of IONM (for new neurologic deficts) was actually 0%. The false negative rate was 2.7% (1/37) becasue the one patient with a new neurologic deficit had negative tEMG testing and no sEMG was noted. tEMG testing likely avoided some injuires but negative testing does not ensure nerves are uninjured. In our data, EMG alone or with SSEPs has relatively poor Sensitivity for nerve deficits also, but adding MEPs provides 100% Sensitivity and may reduce deficits.

Chris Vassel BS, CNIM

NeuroPhysiologist CNIM providing Services for all IOM providers. | CNIM(ABRET) certified. IOM CARE LLC AND CARE BILLING LLC. Florida youth rugby coach growth and development, Boca Raton youth Rugby coach!

4y

Joe thank you for sharing.

Adam Bradley, CNIM, R.EEG T

Surgical Neurophysiologist and Market Development | CNIM, R. EEG T.

4y

Hi Joe, I have done many of these cases in Colorado and a few in California over the last 5-6 years. I typically monitor unilateral EMG, tEMG and SSEP with the sciatic nerve and sacral plexus distributions well covered . I have had mostly good results with this technique. However, I and other clinicians have had variable results with direct stumulation tEMG thresholds with these screws. The construction of the SI screws vary significantly between manufacturers. I and others have seen screws which showed response to direct stim which should be well within safe limits(up to 15mA or greater) and still the patient upon wake up is in agonizing pain. Do you have a threshold you use for safe SI screw placement? I have included a study of solid vs. Cannulated Ped Screw thresholds because it is thought provoking when thought of in terms of an SI fusion. I think with proper coverage and standardized techniques IONM during SI fusion should be standard of care. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3745688/

Mitchell Cordle, CNIM

Surgical Neurophysioligist at North Fulton Neurology

4y

I monitor these for 2 surgeons. Both only do unilateral triggered EMG only.

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Joseph Hartman

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics