Adhesive surface electrodes versus needle-based neuromonitoring in lumbar spinal surgery.

BACKGROUND

The relative safety and more widespread utility of an adhesive surface electrode-based neuromonitoring (ABM) system may reduce the time and cost of traditional needle-based neuromonitoring (NBM).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort review included one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures (2019-2023). The primary variables studied included were time (in minutes) from patient entry into the operating room (OR) to incision, time from patient entry into the OR to closure, and time from incision to closure. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to compare the outcomes between the ABM (31 patients) and NBM (51 patients) modalities.

RESULTS

We found no significant differences in the time from patient entry into the OR to incision (ABM: 71.8, NBM: 70.3, = 0.70), time from patient entry into the OR to closure (ABM: 284.2, NBM: 301.7, = 0.27), or time from incision to closure (ABM: 212.4, NBM: 231.4, = 0.17) between the two groups. Further, no patients from either group required reoperation for mal-positioned instrumentation, and none sustained a new postoperative neurological deficit. The ABM approach did, however, allow for a reduction in neurophysiologist-workforce and neuromonitoring costs.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of the ABM system did not lower surgical time but did demonstrate similar efficacy and clinical outcomes, with reduced clinical invasiveness, neurophysiologist-associated workforce, and overall neuromonitoring cost compared to NBM.