Intraoperative neuromonitoring is not a useful adjunct for Chiari malformation decompressive surgery: a cost-benefit and legal analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025
A Bedside, Single Burr Hole Approach to Multimodality Monitoring in Severe Brain Injury
Published on: March 26, 2019
Mayur S Patel1, Kathleen S Botterbush1, Tyler N Lackland1
1Division of Neurological Surgery, Department of Neurosurgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 1008 South Spring Ave., Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Objectives:
Posterior fossa decompression is currently an operative treatment of choice for Chiari Malformation I (CM1). However, there is controversy surrounding the possible benefits of employing intraoperative neuromonitoring (INM) for this type of procedure. In addition to presenting our single-center experience on the use of INM, we analyze the cost associated with INM in Chiari Malformation (CM) decompression surgery using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database and discuss the legal implications of somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) monitoring during decompression for CM1.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing CM1 decompression with SSEP neuromonitoring from 2011 to 2018. We collected patient characteristics, hospital charges, and surgical cost data from the HCUP database for patients undergoing CM decompression. Finally, we performed a review within the Thompson Reuters Westlaw Edge database for reported litigation involving INM for CM decompression.
Results:
None of the 110 patients submitted to surgery for CM1 at our institution had any significant SSEP changes intraoperatively or developed post-operative neurological deterioration. There were higher mean total hospital charges and surgical costs associated with INM ($31,272) for patients who received INM compared to patients who did not receive INM ($24,112). A careful review of the Westlaw database with multiple-word search strategies revealed no reported medical malpractice claims regarding the absence of SSEP neuromonitoring in a CM decompression procedure.
Conclusion:
Using data collected at our institution and the HCUP national database, we showed that intraoperative neuromonitoring did not affect surgical planning and decision-making or post operative care, while adding unnecessary costs to CM decompression procedures. The absence of reported malpractice claims targeting the lack of neuromonitoring in CM cases suggests that SSEP neuromonitoring during CM may be unnecessary. We propose that neuromonitoring should not be used for routine CM decompression.
