Tag: motor mapping

Posted on

Asleep triple-modality motor mapping for perirolandic gliomas: an update on outcomes

J Neurosurg 140:1029–1037, 2024

Maximal safe resection of gliomas near motor pathways is facilitated by intraoperative mapping. Here, the authors review their results with triple-modality asleep motor mapping with motor evoked potentials and bipolar and monopolar stimulation for cortical and subcortical mapping during glioma surgery in an expanded cohort.

METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent resection of a perirolandic glioma near motor pathways. Clinical and neuromonitoring data were extracted from the electronic medical records for review. All patients with new or worsened postoperative motor deficits were followed for at least 6 months. Regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with a persistent motor deficit.

RESULTS Between January 2018 and December 2021, 160 operations were performed in 151 patients with perirolandic glioma. Sixty-four patients (40%) had preoperative motor deficits, and the median extent of resection was 98%. Overall, patients in 38 cases (23.8%) had new or worse immediate postoperative deficits by discharge, and persistent deficits by 6 months were seen in 6 cases (3.8%), all in patients with high-grade gliomas. There were no new persistent deficits in low-grade glioma patients (0%). The risk factors for a persistent deficit included an insular tumor component (OR 8.6, p = 0.01), preoperative motor weakness (OR 8.1, p = 0.03), intraoperative motor evoked potential (MEP) changes (OR 36.5, p < 0.0001), and peri–resection cavity ischemia (OR 7.5, p = 0.04). Most persistent deficits were attributable to ischemic injury despite structural preservation of the descending motor tracts. For patients with persistent motor deficits, there were 3 cases (50%) in which a change in MEP was noted but subsequent subcortical monopolar stimulation still elicited a response in the corresponding muscle groups, suggesting axonal activation distal to a point of injury.

CONCLUSIONS Asleep triple motor mapping results in a low rate of permanent deficits, especially for low-grade gliomas. Peri–resection cavity ischemia continues to be a significant risk factor for permanent deficit despite maintaining appropriate distance for subcortical tracts based on monopolar feedback.

Posted on

Asleep or awake motor mapping for resection of perirolandic glioma in the nondominant hemisphere?

J Neurosurg 136:16–29, 2022

Resection of glioma in the nondominant hemisphere involving the motor areas and pathways requires the use of brain-mapping techniques to spare essential sites subserving motor control. No clear indications are available for performing motor mapping under either awake or asleep conditions or for the best mapping paradigm (e.g., resting or active, high-frequency [HF] or low-frequency [LF] stimulation) that provides the best oncological and functional outcomes when tailored to the clinical context. This work aimed to identify clinical and imaging factors that influence surgical strategy (asleep motor mapping vs awake motor mapping) and that are associated with the best functional and oncological outcomes and to design a “motor mapping score” for guiding tumor resection in this area.

METHODS The authors evaluated a retrospective series of patients with nondominant-hemisphere glioma—located or infiltrating within 2 cm anteriorly or posteriorly to the central sulcus and affecting the primary motor cortex, its fibers, and/ or the praxis network—who underwent operations with asleep (HF monopolar probe) or awake (LF and HF probes) motor mapping. Clinical and imaging variables were used to design a motor mapping score. A prospective series of patients was used to validate this motor mapping score.

RESULTS One hundred thirty-five patients were retrospectively analyzed: 69 underwent operations with asleep (HF stimulation) motor mapping, and 66 underwent awake (LF and HF stimulation and praxis task evaluation) motor mapping. Previous motor (strength) deficit, previous treatment (surgery/radiotherapy), tumor volume > 30 cm3, and tumor involvement of the praxis network (on MRI) were identified and used to design the mapping score. Motor deficit, previous treatment, and location within or close to the central sulcus favor use of asleep motor mapping; large tumor volume and involvement of the praxis network favor use of awake motor mapping. The motor mapping score was validated in a prospective series of 52 patients—35 underwent operations with awake motor mapping and 17 with asleep motor mapping on the basis of the score indications—who had a low rate of postoperative motor-praxis deficit (3%) and a high extent of resection (median 97%; complete resection in > 70% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS Extensive resection of tumor involving the eloquent areas for motor control is feasible, and when an appropriate mapping strategy is applied, the incidence of postoperative motor-praxis deficit is low. Asleep (HF stimulation) motor mapping is preferable for lesions close to or involving the central sulcus and/or in patients with preoperative strength deficit and/or history of previous treatment. When a patient has no motor deficit or previous treatment and has a lesion (> 30 cm3) involving the praxis network, awake mapping is preferable.

Posted on

Triple motor mapping: transcranial, bipolar, and monopolar mapping for supratentorial glioma resection adjacent to motor pathways

J Neurosurg 134:1728–1737, 2021

Maximal safe resection of gliomas near motor pathways is facilitated by intraoperative mapping. The authors and other groups have described the use of bipolar or monopolar direct stimulation to identify functional tissue, as well as transcranial or transcortical motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to monitor motor pathways. Here, the authors describe their initial experience using all 3 modalities to identify, monitor, and preserve cortical and subcortical motor systems during glioma surgery.

METHODS Intraoperative mapping data were extracted from a prospective registry of glioma resections near motor pathways. Additional demographic, clinical, pathological, and imaging data were extracted from the electronic medical record. All patients with new or worsened postoperative motor deficits were followed for at least 6 months.

RESULTS Between January 2018 and August 2019, 59 operations were performed in 58 patients. Overall, patients in 6 cases (10.2%) had new or worse immediate postoperative deficits. Patients with temporary deficits all had at least Medical Research Council grade 4/5 power. Only 2 patients (3.4%) had permanently worsened deficits after 6 months, both of which were associated with diffusion restriction consistent with ischemia within the corticospinal tract. One patient’s deficit improved to 4/5 and the other to 4/5 proximally and 3/5 distally in the lower limb, allowing ambulation following rehabilitation. Subcortical motor pathways were identified in 51 cases (86.4%) with monopolar high-frequency stimulation, but only in 6 patients using bipolar stimulation. Transcranial or cortical MEPs were diminished in only 6 cases, 3 of which had new or worsened deficits, with 1 permanent deficit. Insula location (p = 0.001) and reduction in MEPs (p = 0.01) were the only univariate predictors of new or worsened postoperative deficits. Insula location was the only predictor of permanent deficits (p = 0.046). The median extent of resection was 98.0%.

CONCLUSIONS Asleep triple motor mapping is safe and resulted in a low rate of deficits without compromising the extent of resection.

Posted on

Awake vs. asleep motor mapping for glioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Acta Neurochirurgica (2020) 162:1709–1720

Intraoperative stimulation (IS) mapping has become the preferred standard treatment for eloquent tumors as it permits a more accurate identification of functional areas, allowing surgeons to achieve higher extents of resection (EOR) and decrease postoperative morbidity. For lesions adjacent to the perirolandic area and descending motor tracts, mapping can be done with both awake craniotomy (AC) and under general anesthesia (GA). Objective We aimed to determine which anesthetic protocol—AC vs. GA—provides better patient outcomes by comparing EOR and postoperative morbidity for surgeries using IS mapping in gliomas located near or in motor areas of the brain.

Methods A systematic literature search was carried out to identify relevant studies from 1983 to 2019. Seven databases were screened. A total of 2351 glioma patients from 17 studies were analyzed.

Results A random-effects meta-analysis revealed a trend towards a higher mean EOR in AC [90.1% (95% C.I. 85.8–93.8)] than with GA [81.7% (95% C.I. 72.4–89.7)] (p = 0.06). Neurological deficits were divided by timing and severity for analysis. There was no significant difference in early neurological deficits [20.9% (95% C.I. 4.1–45.0) vs. 25.4% (95% C.I. 13.6–39.2)] (p = 0.74), late neurological deficits [17.1% (95% C.I. 0.0–50.0) vs. 3.8% (95% C.I. 1.1–7.6)] (p = 0.06), or in non-severe [28.4% (95% C.I. 0.0–88.5) vs. 20.1% (95% C.I. 7.1–32.2)] (p = 0.72), and severe morbidity [2.6% (95% C.I. 0.0–15.5) vs. 4.5% (95% C.I. 1.1–9.6)] (p = 0.89) between patients who underwent AC versus GA, respectively.

Conclusion Mapping during resection of gliomas located in or near the perirolandic area and descending motor tracts can be safely carried out with both AC and GA.

Posted on

The reliability of topographic measurements from navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy volunteers and tumor patients

nTCM stimulationreliability

Acta Neurochir (2013) 155:1309–1317

Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is increasingly being used for preoperative mapping of the motor cortex. Any new technology should undergo rigorous validation before being widely adopted in routine clinical practice.

The aim of this experimental study was to assess the intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability of topographic mapping with nTMS.

Methods nTMS mapping of the motor cortex for the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle was performed by an expert and a novice examiner, twice in ten healthy volunteers and once in ten tumor patients. The distances between the centers-of-gravity and hotspots were calculated, as were coefficients of variation. This study also compared orthogonal versus variable orientation of the stimulation coil.

Results The mean (range) distance between centers-of-gravity for the expert examiner in the test–retest protocol with healthy volunteers was 4.40 (1.86–7.68)mm. The mean (range) distance between centers-of-gravity for the expert vs. novice examiner was 4.89 (2.39–9.22) mm. There were no significant differences in this result between healthy volunteers and tumor patients.

Conclusions nTMS is sufficiently reliable for clinical use, but examiners should make efforts to minimize sources of error. The reliability of nTMS in tumor patients appears comparable to healthy subjects.

Keywords

Posted on

Preoperative multimodal motor mapping: a comparison of magnetoencephalography imaging, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, and direct cortical stimulation

J Neurosurg 117:354–362, 2012

Direct cortical stimulation (DCS) is the gold-standard technique for motor mapping during craniotomy. However, preoperative noninvasive motor mapping is becoming increasingly accurate. Two such noninvasive modalities are navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging. While MEG imaging has already been extensively validated as an accurate modality of noninvasive motor mapping, TMS is less well studied. In this study, the authors compared the accuracy of TMS to both DCS and MEG imaging.

Methods. Patients with tumors in proximity to primary motor cortex underwent preoperative TMS and MEG imaging for motor mapping. The patients subsequently underwent motor mapping via intraoperative DCS. The loci of maximal response were recorded from each modality and compared. Motor strength was assessed at 3 months postoperatively.

Results. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and MEG imaging were performed on 24 patients. Intraoperative DCS yielded 8 positive motor sites in 5 patients. The median distance ± SEM between TMS and DCS motor sites was 2.13 ± 0.29 mm, and between TMS and MEG imaging motor sites was 4.71 ± 1.08 mm. In no patients did DCS motor mapping reveal a motor site that was unrecognized by TMS. Three of 24 patients developed new, early neurological deficit in the form of upper-extremity paresis. At the 3-month follow-up evaluation, 2 of these patients were significantly improved, experiencing difficulty only with fine motor tasks; the remaining patient had improvement to 4/5 strength. There were no deaths over the course of the study.

Conclusions. Maps of the motor system generated with TMS correlate well with those generated by both MEG imaging and DCS. Negative TMS mapping also correlates with negative DCS mapping. Navigated TMS is an accurate modality for noninvasively generating preoperative motor maps.

 

Proudly powered by WordPress