{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013247282608695652, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033967391304347825, 'mean_word_length': 5.754587155963303, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Localization of cervical and cervicomedullary stimulation leads for pain treatment using median nerve somatosensory evoked potential collision testing.

OBJECT
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is being currently used to treat medically refractory pain syndromes involving the face, trunk, and extremities. Unlike thoracic SCS surgery, during which patients can be awakened from conscious sedation to confirm good lead placement, safe placement of paddle leads in the cervical spine has required general anesthesia. Using intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, which is routinely performed during these cases at the authors' institution, the authors developed an electrophysiological technique to intraoperatively lateralize lead placement in the cervical epidural space.


METHODS
Data from 44 patients undergoing median and tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring during cervical laminectomy or hemilaminectomy for placement or replacement of dorsal column stimulators were retrospectively reviewed. Paddle leads were positioned laterally or just off midline and parallel to the axis of the cervical spinal cord to effectively treat what was most commonly a predominant unilateral pain syndrome. During SSEP recording, the spinal cord stimulator was activated at 1.0 V and increased in increments of 1.0 V to a maximum of 6.0 V. A unilateral reduction or abolishment of SSEP amplitude was regarded as an indicator of lateralized placement of the stimulator. A bilateral diminutive effect on SSEPs was interpreted as a midline or near midline lead placement.


RESULTS
Epidural stimulation abolished or significantly reduced SSEP amplitudes in all patients undergoing placement for a unilateral pain syndrome. In 15 patients, electrodes were repositioned intraoperatively to achieve the most robust SSEP amplitude reduction or abolishment using the lowest epidural stimulation intensity. In all cases in which a significant unilateral reduction in SSEP was observed, the patient reported postoperative sensory alterations in target locations predicted by intraoperative SSEP changes. Placement of cervical spinal cord stimulators for bilateral pain syndromes often resulted in bilateral but asymmetrical SSEP changes. In no cases were significant SSEP changes, other than those induced using the device to directly stimulate the dorsal surface of the spinal cord, observed. No case of new postoperative neurological deficit was observed.


CONCLUSIONS
Somatosensory evoked potentials can be used safely and successfully for predicting the lateralization of cervical spinal cord stimulator placement. Moreover, they can also intraoperatively alert the surgical team to inadvertent displacement of a lead during anchoring. Further studies are needed to determine whether apart from assisting with proper lateralization, SSEP collision testing may help to optimize electrode positioning and improve pain control outcomes.