Adoption of intraoperative mechanomyography as a spinal decompression endpoint: A single-surgeon comparison by era.

Authors

Ross Jones, David Nay

Published in

North American Spine Society journal. Volume 27. Pages 100914. Epub Jun 06, 2026.

Abstract

Intraoperative adequacy of spinal decompression is typically judged by visual inspection and tactile assessment rather than objective physiologic confirmation, leaving no objective endpoint for completion. We compared outcomes before and after a single surgeon adopted routine intraoperative mechanomyography (MMG).
In this retrospective single-surgeon, single-institution, era-based cohort, 600 consecutive adult spinal decompression patients were analyzed: 300 before adoption and 300 after stable 100% MMG utilization. The preadoption era used visual and tactile assessment; the postadoption era used MMG threshold-guided decompression targeted at ≤2.0 mA. The primary endpoint was 90-day unplanned return to the operating room (RTOR); confirmatory endpoints were incidental durotomy and 3-month pain. Adjusted regression controlled for demographic and procedural covariates; a post hoc classification distinguished decompression-related from nondecompression RTOR, with sparse subcategories analyzed by Fisher exact tests and a multinomial interaction test.
RTOR decreased from 29/300 (9.7%) to 8/300 (2.7%; adjusted OR 0.245, 95% CI 0.106-0.566, p=.001). Decompression-related RTOR decreased from 4.7% to 1.0% (p=.012) and nondecompression RTOR from 5.0% to 1.7% (p=.038); the differential reduction was not significant (interaction p=.590). Durotomy decreased from 9.7% to 2.3% (adjusted OR 0.246, p=.002), mean 3-month pain from 4.91 to 1.93 (adjusted β -3.09, p<.001), and treatment nonresponse from 45.7% to 7.3%.
Routine MMG adoption was associated with lower RTOR, durotomy, pain, and treatment nonresponse. Because nondecompression RTOR also decreased, and case volume doubled between eras, causal attribution to MMG alone is not possible. These findings are hypothesis-generating and support prospective multicenter validation with patient-level threshold capture.

PMID:
42434721
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 11 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.