Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Minimally Invasive 1- and 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Does It Improve Patient Outcome?

Juanita Garces, J. Franklin Berry, Edison P. Valle-Giler and Wale A. R. Sulaiman
Ochsner Journal March 2014, 14 (1) 57-61;
Juanita Garces
Department of Neurosurgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
Department of Neurosurgery, Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, LA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Franklin Berry
Department of Neurosurgery, Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, LA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edison P. Valle-Giler
Department of Neurosurgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
Department of Neurosurgery, Tulane Medical Center, New Orleans, LA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wale A. R. Sulaiman
Department of Neurosurgery, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Pankowski R,
    2. Dziegiel K,
    3. Roclawski M,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring (INM) in scoliosis surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 176:319–321, pmid:22744519.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Feng B,
    2. Qiu G,
    3. Shen J,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2012) Impact of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during surgery for spine deformity and potential risk factors for neurological monitoring changes. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(4):E108–E114, pmid:22367467.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Isley MR,
    2. Zhang XF,
    3. Balzer JR,
    4. Leppanen RE
    (6, 2012) Current trends in pedicle screw stimulation techniques: lumbosacral, thoracic, and cervical levels. Neurodiagn J 52(2):100–175, pmid:22808751.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Crostelli M,
    2. Mazza O,
    3. Mariani M
    (5, 2012) Free-hand pedicle screws insertion technique in the treatment of 120 consecutive scoliosis cases operated without use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 1):S43–S49, pmid:22411036, Epub 2012 Mar 13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Fehlings MG,
    2. Brodke DS,
    3. Norvell DC,
    4. Dettori JR
    (4 20, 2010) The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35((9 Suppl)):S37–S46, pmid:20407350.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Santiago-Pérez S,
    2. Nevado-Estévez R,
    3. Aguirre-Arribas J,
    4. Pérez-Conde MC
    (Nov-Dec 2007) Neurophysiological monitoring of lumbosacral spinal roots during spinal surgery: continuous intraoperative electromyography (EMG). Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 47((7-8)):361–367, pmid:18051630.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Holland NR
    (12, 2012) Neurophysiological assessment of thoracic and cervical pedicle screw integrity. J Clin Neurophysiol 29(6):489–492, pmid:23207587.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Lall RR,
    2. Lall RR,
    3. Hauptman JS,
    4. et al.
    (11, 2012) Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: indications, efficacy, and role of the preoperative checklist. Neurosurg Focus 33(5):E10, pmid:23116090.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Deletis V,
    2. Sala F
    (2, 2008) Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin Neurophysiol 119(2):248–264, pmid:18053764, Epub 2007 Nov 28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Fisher RS,
    2. Raudzens P,
    3. Nunemacher M
    (1, 1995) Efficacy of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 12(1):97–109, pmid:7896914.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kulik G,
    2. Pralong E,
    3. McManus J,
    4. Debatisse D,
    5. Schizas C. A
    (9, 2013) CT-based study investigating the relationship between pedicle screw placement and stimulation threshold of compound muscle action potentials measured by intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Eur Spine J 22(9):2062–2068, pmid:23686531, Epub 2013 May 19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Sanborn MR,
    2. Thawani JP,
    3. Whitmore RG,
    4. et al.
    (7, 2012) Cost-effectiveness of confirmatory techniques for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus 33(1):E12, pmid:22746229.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Ney JP,
    2. van der Goes DN,
    3. Watanabe JH
    (9, 2012) Cost-effectiveness of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for spinal surgeries: beginning steps. Clin Neurophysiol 123(9):1705–1707, pmid:22386320, Epub 2012 Mar 3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Ney JP,
    2. van der Goes DN,
    3. Watanabe JH
    (6, 2013) Cost-benefit analysis: intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinal surgeries. J Clin Neurophysiol 30(3):280–286, pmid:23733093.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Stecker MM
    (2012) A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int 3((Suppl 3)):S174–S187, pmid:22905324, Epub 2012 Jul 17.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mura PP,
    2. Costaglioli M,
    3. Piredda M,
    4. Caboni S,
    5. Casula S
    (5, 2011) TLIF for symptomatic disc degeneration: a retrospective study of 100 patients. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S57–S60, pmid:21461695, Epub 2011 Apr 2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Kim MC,
    2. Chung HT,
    3. Cho JL,
    4. Kim DJ,
    5. Chung NS
    (10, 2011) Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 20(10):1635–1643, pmid:21720727, Epub 2011 Jul 1.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 14, Issue 1
Mar 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Minimally Invasive 1- and 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Does It Improve Patient Outcome?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Minimally Invasive 1- and 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Does It Improve Patient Outcome?
Juanita Garces, J. Franklin Berry, Edison P. Valle-Giler, Wale A. R. Sulaiman
Ochsner Journal Mar 2014, 14 (1) 57-61;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Minimally Invasive 1- and 2-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Does It Improve Patient Outcome?
Juanita Garces, J. Franklin Berry, Edison P. Valle-Giler, Wale A. R. Sulaiman
Ochsner Journal Mar 2014, 14 (1) 57-61;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • Does intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring matter in noncomplex spine surgeries?
  • Recent Publications by Ochsner Authors: October 2013 - March 2014
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Short-Term Risk of Complications Related to Obstructive Sleep Apnea After Sinonasal Surgery
  • Effect of Statin Potency on Rapid Coronary Intimal Thickening and Rejection in Heart Transplant Recipients
  • Examination of Aeroallergen Sensitization Patterns in Southeastern Louisiana
Show more ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Monitoring–intraoperative
  • spinal fusion
  • surgical procedures–minimally invasive

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2026 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire