Next Article in Journal
Melanoma Clinical Decision Support System: An Artificial Intelligence-Based Tool to Diagnose and Predict Disease Outcome in Early-Stage Melanoma Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Label-Free Quantification Mass Spectrometry Identifies Protein Markers of Chemotherapy Response in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond Avoiding Hemiplegia after Glioma Surgery: The Need to Map Complex Movement in Awake Patient to Preserve Conation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/cancers15072173
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients

by
Nadeem N. Al-Adli
1,2,
Jacob S. Young
1,
Youssef E. Sibih
3 and
Mitchel S. Berger
1,*
1
Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA
2
School of Medicine, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76109, USA
3
School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(7), 2173; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15072173
Submission received: 9 March 2023 / Revised: 29 March 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 6 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances of Brain Mapping in Cancer Research)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Intraoperative stimulation mapping is a technique used to identify and preserve functional tissue during the surgical resection of gliomas. This form of functional brain mapping allows neurosurgeons to remove the most tumor tissue possible while minimizing the risk of a neurological deficit after surgery. The data supporting brain mapping and the technical nuances of performing these operations safely are described in this review.

Abstract

Gliomas are infiltrative primary brain tumors that often invade functional cortical and subcortical regions, and they mandate individualized brain mapping strategies to avoid postoperative neurological deficits. It is well known that maximal safe resection significantly improves survival, while postoperative deficits minimize the benefits associated with aggressive resections and diminish patients’ quality of life. Although non-invasive imaging tools serve as useful adjuncts, intraoperative stimulation mapping (ISM) is the gold standard for identifying functional cortical and subcortical regions and minimizing morbidity during these challenging resections. Current mapping methods rely on the use of low-frequency and high-frequency stimulation, delivered with monopolar or bipolar probes either directly to the cortical surface or to the subcortical white matter structures. Stimulation effects can be monitored through patient responses during awake mapping procedures and/or with motor-evoked and somatosensory-evoked potentials in patients who are asleep. Depending on the patient’s preoperative status and tumor location and size, neurosurgeons may choose to employ these mapping methods during awake or asleep craniotomies, both of which have their own benefits and challenges. Regardless of which method is used, the goal of intraoperative stimulation is to identify areas of non-functional tissue that can be safely removed to facilitate an approach trajectory to the equator, or center, of the tumor. Recent technological advances have improved ISM’s utility in identifying subcortical structures and minimized the seizure risk associated with cortical stimulation. In this review, we summarize the salient technical aspects of which neurosurgeons should be aware in order to implement intraoperative stimulation mapping effectively and safely during glioma surgery.

1. Introduction

Gliomas are diffuse, infiltrative primary brain tumors, often presenting with seizures or neurological deficits referrable to their location within the brain parenchyma. The current standard of care to improve survival for these patients involves surgical resection followed by chemoradiation for higher-grade malignancies [1]. During tumor resection, the primary goal is to maximize the extent of resection—often performing a supratotal resection (SpTR) of lesional tissue when possible—while also preserving neurological function and patient quality of life [2,3,4,5,6,7]. The benefit of aggressive surgical resections must be balanced with the preservation of neurological function, as neurological deficits, particularly hemiparesis, have been shown to abrogate the procedure’s survival benefits [8,9,10].
Technical and technological advances in the operating room have focused on improving postoperative functional outcomes and intraoperative detection of residual tumor cells to facilitate the goal of maximal safe resection [11]. Unfortunately, these infiltrative tumors are often near functional cortical and subcortical regions, making intraoperative electrical stimulation mapping (ISM) critical to safely remove the lesion [12]. Originally introduced by Penfield [13], the field of brain mapping has advanced to allow for intra-operative identification and preservation of functional tissue during surgery [12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. In a large meta-analysis, De Witt Hamer et al. reported ISM to be associated with more extensive resections and fewer late severe neurological deficits, despite more frequently involving tumors located in functional regions [12]. In addition, when compared to asleep resections, awake mapping is associated with fewer neurological deficits, as well as improved overall and progression-free survival [24].
As the arsenal of techniques has expanded and evolved for cortical and subcortical mapping in glioma patients, neurosurgeons need to be aware of the techniques available for safely identifying functional regions for the purpose of maximizing the extent of resection. In this review, we describe the technical aspects of intraoperative mapping, both awake and asleep, for tumor resection.

2. Maximizing Extent of Resection Is the Standard of Care

Maximal safe resection is defined as resecting as much tumor-infiltrated tissue as possible to improve survival while minimizing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits and retaining quality of life [2,25,26,27]. As mentioned, SpTR has recently been associated with improved overall survival (OS) for both LGG and GBM [2,28]; however, the survival advantage of these more aggressive resections is lost when patients have a postoperative deficit [8,9,10]. As such, significant efforts have been made to develop pre- and intra-operative methods for maximizing EOR. Furthermore, neurological deficits and poor functional outcomes are associated with the development of medical complications, depression, and an overall poorer quality of life [29,30,31].
Intraoperative stimulation mapping (ISM) remains the gold standard for the identification of functional tissue during surgical resections [32,33]. Preoperatively, it is important to consider several factors, such as tumor localization, the patient’s cognitive and functional status, preoperative neurological deficits, and preoperative anxiety level, when determining the surgical plan. Preoperative tools include functional MRI (fMRI), magnetoencephalography (MEG), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) [16,34], which can be used as adjuncts during surgical planning, but they lack the accuracy and specificity to be used in place of intraoperative cortical and subcortical direct electrical stimulation [27,35].
Recent technological advances have improved the reliability of direct cortical and subcortical electrical stimulation, as well as transcranial cortical stimulation [36], which can be used in conjunction with neurophysiological monitoring of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) to provide constant insight into the functional integrity of the corticospinal tract or dorsal columns/medial lemniscus sensory system during tumor resection [33]. Cortical mapping is used to identify functional sites that are vital in the language, motor, somatosensory, and executive/cognitive domains and must be preserved. Non-functional sites revealed as negative sites during mapping can be safely used for the initial corticectomy to approach the tumor [27]. Testing and monitoring of cognitive functions such as language, visual perception, and spatial orientation is dependent on having the patient awake and cooperative during the procedure; therefore, these functions cannot be accurately assessed in asleep craniotomies [27]. While motor mapping may be performed during either awake (AC) or asleep (AS) craniotomies, there is no consensus on the superiority of one technique over the other, and the choice of awake versus asleep mapping often depends on the patient’s symptoms and the tumor’s location and size [27,37,38]. For example, in a matched cohort analysis, Gerritsen et al. reported that awake craniotomies resulted in more extensive resections in the entire cohort, and on subgroup analyses based on cutoffs of 70 years of age, a preoperative National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 2 and a Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) of 90 [24]. In addition, the authors reported OS and PFS benefits in younger patients, as well as those with a NIHSS of 0–1 and a KPS of 90–100. Importantly, two currently recruiting trials aim to assess the safety and efficacy of awake and asleep craniotomies in glioma patients (Table 1), the results of which should aid in corroborating these findings and in surgical decision making.

3. Nuances of Intraoperative Motor Mapping Techniques and Measurements

3.1. Cortical and Subcortical Motor Mapping

Intraoperative motor mapping is critical for preserving function when resecting tumors near the Rolandic cortex and subcortical corticospinal tract, as postoperative motor deficits have been shown to abolish the survival benefit associated with maximal extents of resection and greatly impair patients’ quality of life [9,10]. Advances in MEP monitoring, neuronavigation, cortical/subcortical mapping, and intraoperative surgical techniques have all contributed to safer resections for tumors near motor regions by minimizing direct damage and/or ischemic injury to these pathways [41,42].

3.2. Tractography for the Corticospinal Tract (CST)

In a prospective randomized control trial published in 2007, Wu et al. reported a dramatic improvement in overall survival and better postoperative KPS in patients who underwent resections of tumors involving the pyramidal tracts. This was achieved using DTI fiber tracking of the CST integrated into the neuronavigation, which was more successful compared to standard neuronavigation with structural MRI sequences [43]. While there is no doubt that DTI tractography is helpful for guiding surgeons regarding proximity to vital structures, and is a part of the standard practice for these operations, DTI is not based on physiological parameters; as such, its intraoperative accuracy is subject to numerous limitations. For example, the region-of-interests used as seeds to generate the tractography projects can alter their appearance, and intra-operative brain shift can dramatically impair the navigation/DTI accuracy [23]. As such, DTI alone cannot be used to identify the CST, and instead should be incorporated into the intraoperative decision-making strategy for the pursuit of subcortical mapping.

3.3. Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs)

Intraoperative MEPs are also considered part of the gold standard for supratentorial glioma resections near the primary motor cortex or corticospinal tract. Transcranial MEPs (tcMEPs) utilize a high-voltage electrical stimulus through the scalp/skull to activate the motor cortex and descending pathways to generate an MEP, which can be measured by electrodes on the limbs. Alternatively, MEPs can be obtained by direct cortical stimulation (dcMEPs) after opening the dura by stimulating through a strip electrode that is placed over the primary motor cortex [44]. Following ‘train of 5’ anodal stimulation, a drop in signal amplitude by >50%, with the same stimulus intensity serving as the baseline established at the beginning of the case, or a 20% increase in the stimulus threshold needed to achieve a response compared to the ipsilateral muscle groups, are generally considered to be warning signals for postoperative weakness, and are monitored with the goal of avoiding false negative (i.e., normal MEP signals in patients who ultimately suffer from postoperative weakness) and overly sensitive false positive stimulation results (i.e., drops in MEP amplitude in patients without postoperative motor deficits) [45,46]. MEPs can be obtained every 30 s during the entirety of the tumor resection to monitor the tract integrity, although brain shift as the resection progresses can provide false positive MEP changes that the surgeon can often identify by dynamically returning the cortex to the dural opening with irrigation, manual manipulation, and/or transitioning from tcMEPs to dcMEPs for a more reliable signal.

3.4. Awake versus Asleep Motor Mapping

The choice of AC or AS for motor mapping is nuanced, and may be influenced by the patient’s clinical examination and the tumor size/location [47]. There are significant differences in neuroanesthetic regimen, intraoperative neuromonitoring technique, and the complexity of patient tasks between awake and asleep mapping. A recent systematic review reported that both methods are safe in perirolandic tumors [48]; however, AC may offer better EOR and functional outcomes [49]. Alternatively, some studies have argued that patient-level characteristics are the most important for making one method preferable to the other [50].
While determining the optimal approach is a multifaceted process, intraoperative mapping techniques in both scenarios have ultimately enabled surgeons to resect tumors that were once considered inoperable within and near the primary motor cortex [51], and as such, have become the gold standard [12]. Nevertheless, there are inherent technical differences between the two methods. For example, in AS, responses are monitored through electrical responses to stimulation and/or passive patient movement, whereas assessment in the awake setting is geared towards impairment during patient-dependent tasks and/or involuntary movement [16,27,50]. Additionally, tcMEPs, which provide the added benefit of motor cortex stimulation without overt craniotomy exposure [46], are modified in awake cases to avoid the pain associated with corkscrew stimulators and subdermal needle EMG electrodes [52]. Rather, in awake craniotomies, stickers can be used for EMG recording, and the ground and reference must be placed close to one another to minimize the amount of current needed to achieve MEPs. Even with these modifications, direct cortical stimulation with a strip electrode on the motor cortex surface with the ground and a reference electrode placed close by is often needed to minimize the current needed to generate MEPs. Finally, given that awake patients do not have bite blocks in place (all asleep patients need to have two carefully placed bite blocks that secures the tongue in the middle of the mouth), the stimulation current must not cause involuntary contraction of the masseter or jaw muscles to avoid tongue lacerations.
Advances in asleep motor mapping, particularly with respect to high-frequency cortical and subcortical stimulation, have resulted in very good functional outcomes following asleep resections of lesions involving the central sulcus and in patients with preoperative weakness [50]. Regarding tumors located within the primary motor cortex, studies have demonstrated that there are no differences between the two with regard to EOR or postoperative morbidity [53,54], while others have suggested that AC is associated with more frequent 100% resections and better postoperative functional status [24,49]. While additional studies are needed to directly compare the two methods, generally speaking, both techniques can be used safely in this high-risk cohort, and outcomes likely depend on the intraoperative techniques used. For example, permanent postoperative deficits have been reported in as few as 2% of AS cases when using adaptive high-frequency monopolar mapping [51], which is preferred in the asleep setting due to the variability of neuromonitoring measurements when the patient is awake [51]. On the other hand, in AC cases, continued resection past the point of failed recovery of an intraoperative deficit is associated with permanent deficits [55].
For lesions involving the supplemental motor area (SMA) and motor–praxis network, some groups argue for awake motor mapping, while others advise against AC for lesions in this region, since avoidance of postoperative SMA syndrome is unnecessary given the transient nature of this deficit [50,56]. Still, debate abounds regarding the superior method and the associated risk factors. While the degree of regional resection has been suggested as a risk factor [57], Kumar et al. reported in a small series of SMA region tumors resected using AS, that all tumors were completely resected with intact MEPs. Additionally, despite the development of a case of SMA syndrome, all of their patients recovered completely [58]. Aligned with the hypothesis that these resections can be performed in both settings, Young et al., in their larger cohort of newly-diagnosed SMA region tumors, reported no association between the type of craniotomy (AC vs. AS) and the development of the syndrome [56]. Furthermore, they reported that while larger resection cavities were associated with the development of an SMA syndrome and prolonged recovery, the severity of the symptoms was unaffected [56]. Some studies argue that resection of the frontal aslant tract (FAT) is critical in the development of the syndrome [59], whereas others have suggested that preservation of the FAT is insufficient for prevention [56,60,61]. Alternatively, extensive resection of the posterior SMA region [62,63] and cingulate gyrus are perhaps more important risk factors [56,64]. Taken together, these findings suggest that premature cessation of resection due to insignificant intraoperative deficits may occur in the awake setting [61,65] and without subsequent benefit to the patient. Importantly, during preoperative discussions with their patients, neurosurgeons should highlight the possibility of these temporary deficits when pursuing aggressive resections of tumors in this location, as well as the possibility of these deficits emerging during intraoperative mapping if an awake approach is chosen.

3.5. Stimulation Techniques and Nuances

Motor mapping can be performed using either high- or low-frequency stimulation and either a monopolar or bipolar probe (Table 2). In both paradigms, stimulation aims to identify the lowest intensity at which MEPs are produced (i.e., the cortical or subcortical motor threshold) for accurate boundary identification [52]. Low-frequency bipolar stimulation (biphasic-wave, 1 ms pulse duration, 60 Hz, 4–16 mA) can be used for cortical mapping in order to identify function-free zones for the corticotomy [36]. However, this method only identifies positive sites in subcortical mapping ~40% of the time, giving this technique high specificity, but poor sensitivity [42]. As such, monopolar, high-frequency stimulation is preferred, particularly for subcortical mapping, as it is not only sensitive for functional sites but also provides quantitative estimates of the distance from critical subcortical tracts depending on the intensity of the stimulation used to elicit a response (i.e., 1 mA ≃ 1 mm) [27]. In some instances, a bipolar probe may be used to increase spatial resolution when needed during subcortical mapping [33].
Traditionally, high-frequency monopolar stimulation is administered as a monophasic wave pulse in trains of 5 (0.5 ms pulse duration, 1–4 ms interstimulation interval, 0–20 mA); however, more recently, reduced trains of 1 to 2 [51,66] have demonstrated added utility as well. Rossi et al. directly compared these two protocols and identified tumor subgroups in which shorter trains may offer additional insight. In tumors outside of the primary motor cortex and cortical spinal tracts, those only affecting the cortical spinal tracts, or those originating within the primary motor cortex with normal cortical architecture, ‘train of 2’ stimulation better segregated the anterior and posterior regions of the primary motor cortex—a distinction that may aid in maximizing EOR while preserving long-term function [66]. In addition, only the two trains of stimulation identified function-free zones in primary motor cortex tumors with distorted cortical architecture. The authors identified similar patterns regarding subcortical mapping where two trains of stimulation may have provided added specificity to mapping within the primary motor cortex. In a separate study, Rossi et al. evaluated increased and decreased trains of stimulation and found that in patients with well-controlled seizures and well-defined tumors, maximal safe resection was possible using the standard five trains of stimulation and resecting until reaching a subcortical motor threshold of 3 mA. Alternatively, in those with a complex treatment history, prior seizures, or deficits at presentation, this may need to be adapted by increasing the number of pulses and/or duration of pulses to achieve adequate resection. Lastly, the authors reported that in diffuse tumors, the combination of the five trains and the modified two trains should be used to define functional boundaries at the cortical and subcortical levels [51].
High-frequency monopolar stimulation, first described by Taniguchi et al., has become an emerging tool for cortical mapping and may be delivered in short trains of 3 to 10 (250–500 Hz, 0.5–0.8 ms pulses, 0–20 mA), similarly to subcortical parameters [67,68,69]. However, in contrast to subcortical stimulation, an anodal current should be used, as it more effectively produces corresponding MEPs at lower thresholds [67,68,70]. In comparison to bipolar cortical stimulation, this technique offers equal sensitivity over the primary motor cortex, but in other areas, such as the premotor frontal cortex, bipolar stimulation is superior [68]. The advantages of monopolar cortical stimulation primarily include the lower rate of seizures and the ease of continuing subcortical mapping during resection [71]. Taken together, these techniques are complex and most effective when used in combination with one another to minimize postoperative morbidity [36]. However, neurosurgeons should utilize these methods according to their experience and the available resources.
Table
Table 2. Overview of intraoperative motor mapping parameters.
Table 2. Overview of intraoperative motor mapping parameters.
CorticalSubcorticalTranscranial
MonopolarBipolarMonopolarBipolarScalp Electrodes
Frequency (Hz)250–50050–60250–50050–60200–1000
Wave formMonophasic rectangularBiphasic squareMonophasic rectangularBiphasic squareMonophasic
PolarityAnodalAlternatingCathodalAlternatingAnodal
Intensity0–20 mA0–16 mA0–20 mA1–6 mA0–800 V
Duration (ms)0.5–0.810.5–0.810.75
Pulses (Trains)5–1060/s5–960/s3–9
Interstimulus interval (ms)2–416.72–416.71–5
MEP threshold (mA)
Awake5–152–7
Asleep2–77–16
Stimulation amplitudes * (mA) [42,72,73]
Awake1–202–81–202–8
Asleep1–203–161–203–16
Abbreviations: Hz, hertz; ms, milliseconds; mA, milliamp. * EcoG should be used with higher stimulation amplitudes to monitor for after-discharge potential, as the risk of a stimulation-induced seizure is higher.

4. Sensory Mapping

Somatosensory mapping may be performed in awake or asleep settings, and in the former, may be assessed by patient-reported sensations during electrical stimulation [74,75,76]. Nonetheless, somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) may assist with structural localization and deficit prediction [77]. For the purpose of localizing the central sulcus, phase reversal is one reliable method [78]. Some studies have suggested that SSEPs may additionally be used for monitoring sensorimotor function during glioma resection and predicting neurological deficits [79]. The warning criteria, which were initially defined as a >50% amplitude reduction or >10% propagation of latency from the baseline, have now been adapted to suggest that an obvious, abrupt, and not otherwise explainable visual deviation from pre-change values may be concerning for intraoperative injury [77]. Ultimately, recent literature has reported mediocre predictive statistics associated with these criteria [80], and has failed to demonstrated a significant association with postoperative neurological deficits [81]. Therefore, SSEPs may provide indirect localization of important structures; however, concerning recordings should be interpreted with caution, as they may lead to premature completion of the resection [82]. Moreover, sensory deficits, when reported, have little association with the patient’s functional independence [31], and as such, SSEP monitoring is not necessary given the superiority of MEPs for primary motor cortex identification [33].

5. Language Mapping

Awake language mapping is critical for glioma surgery within the dominant hemisphere [15,83,84,85,86]. Previous works have established that language networks are variable, and as such, mapping only when tumors involve specific anatomic regions is inadequate [14,83,87,88] because no structural landmark on preoperative MRI can precisely predict functional tissue [84]. Combined with the possibility of functional tissue being present within the tumor region [89,90] and tumor-induced reorganization [91,92,93,94], these factors complicate language localization [95]. While ISM is the gold standard, intraoperative MRI (iMRI), 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA), and intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) are notable adjuncts that can be used in the operating room to increase the extent of resection [96,97,98].

5.1. Patient Selection and Preoperative Assessment

Although no guidelines on patient selection for awake surgery exist, some contraindications include uncontrolled coughing, severe dysphagia, and greater than 33% naming errors despite dexamethasone and mannitol treatment [99]. Some commonly cited relative contraindications include significant diuretic- and steroid-resistant mass effect, obesity (BMI > 30), psychiatric and/or emotional instability, under 10 years of age, intraoperative seizures, current smoker, intraoperative nausea, reoperation, and significant preoperative functional impairment; however, specific solutions for each relative contraindication have been described to safely perform awake procedures in patients with these comorbidities or conditions [99,100].
Preoperative evaluation includes anatomic imaging, diffusion tensor imaging tractography, functional connectivity maps with magnetic source imaging (MSI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), neurolinguistic testing, patient counseling, and, in some cases, a neuropsychological evaluation. Additional functional imaging techniques may be used for preoperative language mapping, such as fMRI and nTMS, although these noninvasive imaging modalities are not specific enough to determine the location of language function beyond hemispheric dominance [17,101].

5.2. Anesthetic Considerations

While a dedicated neuroanesthesia team is essential to providing the optimal care for patients, various neuroanesthetic regimens can be used during an awake craniotomy [102]. A recent meta-analysis reported that the commonly used asleep–awake–asleep (AAA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) techniques are equally safe [103]. Propofol-remifentanil and/or dexmedetomidine may be used for the AAA approach [99,104,105], while dexmedetomidine is typically the only agent used in MAC cases. While a nasal cannula is used for supplemental oxygen in all cases, a laryngeal mask airway or nasal trumpet should be available and used when needed [99,103]. Generous local analgesia is essential for Mayfield placement, and a scalp block can be useful for pain relief prior to skin incision [100].

5.3. Current Technique

A focused exposure begins with a tailored craniotomy site over the lesion and any adjacent structures that may require mapping. Dural opening is typically more challenging in reoperation cases due to dural scars and adhesions. During the dural opening process, lidocaine may be used to provide a dural block, particularly near the middle cranial fossa floor, if the patient is experiencing discomfort. Sedation is significantly reduced or stopped all together prior to opening the dura, and once adequate cortical exposure is achieved, anesthesia should have propofol in line and iced Ringer’s solution should be available for seizure control if needed. In both techniques, a short assessment of the patient’s wakefulness is performed prior to cortical mapping and linguistic testing. Regarding task selection, these vary widely between institutions and there is currently no agreement on the optimal test to use. Picture naming, text reading and writing, sentence completion, syntax, auditory naming, and spelling are some of the most common assessments performed [100]. While language assessment protocols exist to standardize intra-operative task selection [106], they are not widely used, and ultimately, care should be taken to avoid tests with poor sensitivity or specificity during baseline testing [106,107].
Various techniques for cortical and subcortical mapping have been reported using varied parameters [108,109]. Low-frequency bipolar stimulation (60 Hz, 1.25 ms biphasic square waves in 4 s trains) generated across 1 mm electrodes separated by 5 mm is traditionally used. However, some studies have reported using high-frequency monopolar stimulation (HFMS) for language mapping with comparable results when utilizing high-frequency trains at a repetition rate of 3 Hz [110,111]. Compared to low-frequency bipolar stimulation (LFBS) for motor mapping, HFMS is known to be more efficacious and less likely to induce intraoperative seizures [111], which makes its potential implementation for language mapping intriguing. However, in the few studies that have directly compared the two methods, seizures occurred in 7–11% of patients [110,111], which suggests that additional data are still needed.
Nonetheless, standard cortical mapping typically begins at a 2 mA stimulus, which can be increased until somatosensory or motor function is identified or, in the case of language, until after-discharge (AD) or epileptiform activity are noted on electrocorticography (ECoG) by an epileptologist. In the case of language mapping, classically, the AD-induced intensity is reduced by 1 mA and then used for the remainder of the language mapping process, which usually ranges from 3 to 4 mA, to avoid false positive results from AD-induced errors and minimize the risk of seizures [112]. If motor or somatosensory sites are not exposed, a 4-contact strip electrode can be advanced subdurally to establish positive somatosensory/motor sites.
Cortical testing sites, separated by 1 cm, are non-sequentially tested 3 times each for 3 to 4 s, with a 4 to 10 s inter-task interval. If patients are fatigued or struggling with the testing, the inter-task interval can be prolonged to give the patients more recovery time between tests. A site is considered ‘positive’ when it produces either speech arrest without a simultaneous motor response, anomia, or alexia in two of the three attempts [104,113]. A trained neuropsychologist engages with the patient while coordinating with the neurosurgeon during mapping to identify positive and negative sites. These are recorded along with the stimulation parameters and marked using numbered indicators. Cortical dissection using an ultrasonic aspirator proceeds through ‘function-free’ corridors, while a 1 cm margin should be preserved around ‘positive’ sites [99,114]. Importantly, we found that this method of negative mapping has an exceedingly low false-negative rate [99], and as such, if cortical mapping reveals no ‘positive’ sites, greater exposure to find a ‘positive’ site is not necessary [15]. Subcortical mapping is performed in a similar fashion, but is focused on nearby areas with presumed language function, for which preoperative tractography superimposed within the intraoperative neuronavigational space can be useful [115,116]. Critical subcortical tracts involved in language include the arcuate fasciculus (AF), superior longitudinal fasciculus (SLF), inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF), inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus (IFOF), uncinate fasciculus (UF), and subcallosal fasciculus (SF) [117]. In addition, each subcortical tract and their associated pathways are responsible for highly specific functions that are individually and collectively important for language and conflictive function [118]. As such, an individualized approach is taken when choosing tasks and stimulation sites which is tailored towards the characteristics of both the patient and the tumor [116,118].

6. Executive Function—Beyond Language and Sensorimotor

Executive function (EF) describes the way in which one can coordinate and control higher-order behaviors, social abilities, and cognitive tasks. Despite advances in neuroimaging and brain mapping that have resulted in improvements in functional outcomes and EOR, patients may still develop an array of cognitive deficits that impact their quality of life, ability to return to work, and capacity to complete activities of daily living [119]. Although a recovery of cognitive function to the preoperative level is possible, much of the literature lacks robust discussion of EF [120]. In addition, a complete understanding of the cortical and subcortical networks involved in EF has not yet been achieved; however, functional imaging has revealed that these networks are primarily located in the frontocorticostriatal region of the brain [25]. The incomplete understanding of these networks and their importance to postoperative patient performance status and quality of life makes intraoperative mapping a relatively complex challenge, and likely explains the limited research on the subject [121]. In addition, EF testing is intricate and time-consuming, which may reduce patient cooperation during the awake portions of their surgery [25,118,122].
Despite these challenges, studies have begun to evaluate the feasibility of EF mapping, with a primary focus on LGG patients due to their potential for deeper subcortical infiltration and longitudinal impacts on cognition [4,123] (Table 3). Accordingly, the frontoparietal and the frontal cortico-subcortical networks along with the FAT have been shown to have roles in executive function, and, when disrupted during LGG resection, may be implicated in EF deficits [124]. Wager et al. were the first to report the operative feasibility of the Stroop Test, which is a well-established tool for evaluating executive function during cortical mapping [125]. Puglisi et al. added to these results by demonstrating the efficacy of a simplified version, the “intraoperative version of the Stroop task” (iST), during subcortical mapping [126]. Their study revealed that iST-positive subcortical sites were correlated with executive function and, when spared, patients experienced minimal deficits at their 3-month follow-ups. Importantly, the implementation of this task did not affect the extent of resection [126]. Erez et al., in their novel implementation of ECoG monitoring, demonstrated the potential of resection to support and guide direct electrical stimulation in order to identify the functional regions of the cortex which are involved in EF [127].
Taken together, considering the diverse array of EF-related behaviors and the limited time frame allotted for functional mapping during an awake craniotomy, it would be extremely difficult to assess all aspects of this domain. Therefore, it would be most appropriate to perform comprehensive preoperative neuropsychological batteries to identify the most patient-centered, clinically relevant functions in order to potentially assess intraoperatively. Ultimately, however, larger, prospective studies assessing EF with an intent to provide clinically relevant improvement are needed before the wide implementation of such techniques is possible.

7. Managing Expected and Unexpected Intraoperative Events

7.1. Intraoperative Seizures

A risk associated with direct cortical stimulation during intraoperative mapping is the development of stimulation-induced seizures [131], occurring in 2.5 to 54% of awake craniotomies [132]. These may complicate the operation and are the leading cause of aborted awake operations [133], although their incidence is relatively low [134]. Intraoperative ECoG analyses have previously demonstrated that intraoperative seizures and after-discharges can be avoided by limiting the charges transferred per second and the total number and duration of stimulations [132]. A practical approach for management involves the application of cold Ringer’s solution to the cortex until cessation [131]. Rarely, recurrent seizures may require propofol and/or laryngeal mask airway intubation for airway protection [135]. Neither intraoperative nor after-discharge seizures have a significant effect on the presence of postoperative neurological deficits, length of hospital stay, or perioperative seizure activity [136].

7.2. Changes in Neuromonitoring or Task Performance

Currently, there are no set criteria for classifying a significant intraoperative change in the setting of MEPs. The American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring has published a position statement that a marked reduction in the amplitude of the evoked response, acute threshold elevation, and signal disappearance are indicators of potential motor injury [137]. As previously mentioned, similar warning criteria exist for SSEPs, but with limited reported utility. Nonetheless, the monitoring of MEPs have demonstrated utility in predicting and helping to prevent motor tract injury [138,139], particularly related to ischemia. In the event of MEP deterioration or loss, in most instances, the resection should be stopped and the field evaluated for any potentially obvious causes. Subsequent actions may include irrigation, filling the cavity with fluid to reduce brain shift, papavarine to treat vasospasm of small lenticulostriate vessels, relaxing any fixed retractors, and/or complete cessation of resection in the associated region [138].
In addition to neuromonitoring and preoperative deficits, intraoperative performance on selected tasks and/or positive mapping sites may also be associated with postoperative deficits [85,140]. A recent systematic review reported that intra-operative anomia and production errors were significantly predictive of postoperative language deficits in the acute phase (1 to 10 days), and when combined with a preoperative deficit, the probability further increased [140]. Importantly, these factors were not associated with postoperative deficits at 3 to 8 months. Similarly, identifying positive subcortical sites during motor mapping and preoperative deficits have been reported as independent risk factors for transient or permanent postoperative motor deficits [85]. When both factors were present, there was a significant increase in the odds of a transient deficit; however, for permanent deficits, only the presence of a positive bipolar subcortical site was a risk factor. As such, neurosurgeons should pay particular attention to these specific intraoperative findings during resection and utilize them to guide further surgical decision-making, as well as during postoperative patient counseling regarding expectations.

7.3. Avoiding Intra-Operative Awake Craniotomy Failures

Awake craniotomies require intensive preparation and precise timing of the patient awakening’s to avoid intraoperative complications and reduced patient cooperability [27]. Failure rates have been reported to be as high as 6.4%, and are associated with poor preoperative patient selection and adverse effects from intraoperative medications [134]. Although studies have reported that emergency intubations rarely occur [141,142,143,144], seizures and respiratory complications are most frequently the cause [134]. Alternatively, communication-related failures occur more frequently, and are associated with preoperative deficits and functional status [134]. As such, preoperative evaluations in order to predict intraoperative difficulties with an AC are currently under development [145].
Other intraoperative major events, such as respiratory or hemodynamic events requiring intervention, have been associated with remifentanil infusion, increased duration of tumor resection following cortical mapping, and a history of asthma [146]. Regarding the neuroanesthetic technique, Eseonu et al. reported shorter mean operative times in MAC versus AAA awake craniotomies (283.5 min vs. 313.3 min; p = 0.038); however, there were no differences in mean length of stay or rate of conversion to general anesthesia between the two groups [147]. Finally, in a large cohort study of 611 patients undergoing awake craniotomy over a 27-year period, Hervey-Jumper et al. reported that neither tumor location, ASA classification, tumor pathology, seizure history, Mallampati score, smoking status, nor BMI impacted the safety or efficacy of awake operations [99]. Taken together, awake operations are generally safe when performed by an experienced neurosurgical team and with proper preoperative evaluation and patient counseling.

8. Conclusions

Gliomas are a highly prevalent cause of major disability and mortality across the globe. During the surgical management of this disease, neurosurgeons should aim to resect the maximal amount of tumor-infiltrated tissue while preserving motor, sensory, language, and cognitive function to provide patients with the best quality of life. A deep understanding of the technical, anatomical, and functional nuances is needed to safely resect these infiltrative tumors. Intraoperative stimulation mapping is a safe and effective method for achieving these goals; however, it requires a multifaceted and patient-centered approach during surgical decision-making. Finally, regardless of the techniques or additional adjuncts implemented by brain tumor neurosurgeons, emphasis should always be placed on feasibility and safety, all while considering the patient’s goals for their care.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.N.A.-A., J.S.Y. and M.S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, N.N.A.-A., J.S.Y., Y.E.S. and M.S.B.; writing—review and editing, N.N.A.-A., J.S.Y. and M.S.B.; supervision, J.S.Y. and M.S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stupp, R.; Mason, W.P.; van den Bent, M.J.; Weller, M.; Fisher, B.; Taphoorn, M.J.B.; Belanger, K.; Brandes, A.A.; Marosi, C.; Bogdahn, U.; et al. Radiotherapy plus Concomitant and Adjuvant Temozolomide for Glioblastoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 352, 987–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Molinaro, A.M.; Hervey-Jumper, S.; Morshed, R.A.; Young, J.; Han, S.J.; Chunduru, P.; Zhang, Y.; Phillips, J.J.; Shai, A.; Lafontaine, M.; et al. Association of Maximal Extent of Resection of Contrast-Enhanced and Non–Contrast-Enhanced Tumor With Survival Within Molecular Subgroups of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brown, T.J.; Brennan, M.C.; Li, M.; Church, E.W.; Brandmeir, N.J.; Rakszawski, K.L.; Patel, A.S.; Rizk, E.B.; Suki, D.; Sawaya, R.; et al. Association of the Extent of Resection With Survival in Glioblastoma. JAMA Oncol. 2016, 2, 1460–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Rossi, M.; Ambrogi, F.; Gay, L.; Gallucci, M.; Nibali, M.C.; Leonetti, A.; Puglisi, G.; Sciortino, T.; Howells, H.; Riva, M.; et al. Is supratotal resection achievable in low-grade gliomas? Feasibility, putative factors, safety, and functional outcome. J. Neurosurg. 2020, 132, 1692–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Rossi, M.; Gay, L.; Ambrogi, F.; Conti Nibali, M.; Sciortino, T.; Puglisi, G.; Leonetti, A.; Mocellini, C.; Caroli, M.; Cordera, S.; et al. Association of supratotal resection with progression-free survival, malignant transformation, and overall survival in lower-grade gliomas. Neuro-oncology 2021, 23, 812–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khalafallah, A.M.; Rakovec, M.; Bettegowda, C.; Jackson, C.M.; Gallia, G.L.; Weingart, J.D.; Lim, M.; Esquenazi, Y.; Zacharia, B.E.; Goldschmidt, E.; et al. A Crowdsourced Consensus on Supratotal Resection Versus Gross Total Resection for Anatomically Distinct Primary Glioblastoma. Neurosurgery 2021, 89, 712–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jackson, C.; Choi, J.; Khalafallah, A.M.; Price, C.; Bettegowda, C.; Lim, M.; Gallia, G.; Weingart, J.; Brem, H.; Mukherjee, D. A systematic review and meta-analysis of supratotal versus gross total resection for glioblastoma. J. Neurooncol. 2020, 148, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McGirt, M.J.; Mukherjee, D.; Chaichana, K.L.; Than, K.D.; Weingart, J.D.; Quinones-Hinojosa, A. Association of surgically acquired motor and language deficits on overall survival after resection of glioblastoma multiforme. Neurosurgery 2009, 65, 463–469; discussion 469–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rahman, M.; Abbatematteo, J.; Leo, E.K.D.; Kubilis, P.S.; Vaziri, S.; Bova, F.; Sayour, E.; Mitchell, D.; Quinones-Hinojosa, A. The effects of new or worsened postoperative neurological deficits on survival of patients with glioblastoma. J. Neurosurg. 2016, 127, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aabedi, A.A.; Young, J.S.; Zhang, Y.; Ammanuel, S.; Morshed, R.A.; Dalle Ore, C.; Brown, D.; Phillips, J.J.; Oberheim Bush, N.A.; Taylor, J.W.; et al. Association of Neurological Impairment on the Relative Benefit of Maximal Extent of Resection in Chemoradiation-Treated Newly Diagnosed Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Wild-Type Glioblastoma. Neurosurgery 2022, 90, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feng, C.; Wu, Y.; Gao, L.; Guo, X.; Wang, Z.; Xing, B. Publication Landscape Analysis on Gliomas: How Much Has Been Done in the Past 25 Years? Front. Oncol. 2020, 9, 1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hamer, P.C.D.W.; Robles, S.G.; Zwinderman, A.H.; Duffau, H.; Berger, M.S. Impact of Intraoperative Stimulation Brain Mapping on Glioma Surgery Outcome: A Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 2559–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Penfield, W.; Boldrey, E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain 1937, 60, 389–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ojemann, G.A.; Whitaker, H.A. Language localization and variability. Brain Lang. 1978, 6, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sanai, N.; Mirzadeh, Z.; Berger, M.S. Functional Outcome after Language Mapping for Glioma Resection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gerritsen, J.K.W.; Broekman, M.L.D.; De Vleeschouwer, S.; Schucht, P.; Nahed, B.V.; Berger, M.S.; Vincent, A.J.P.E. Safe surgery for glioblastoma: Recent advances and modern challenges. Neuro-Oncol. Pract. 2022, 9, 364–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ille, S.; Sollmann, N.; Hauck, T.; Maurer, S.; Tanigawa, N.; Obermueller, T.; Negwer, C.; Droese, D.; Zimmer, C.; Meyer, B.; et al. Combined noninvasive language mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI and its comparison with direct cortical stimulation. J. Neurosurg. 2015, 123, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Krieg, S.M.; Sollmann, N.; Obermueller, T.; Sabih, J.; Bulubas, L.; Negwer, C.; Moser, T.; Droese, D.; Boeckh-Behrens, T.; Ringel, F.; et al. Changing the clinical course of glioma patients by preoperative motor mapping with navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation. BMC Cancer 2015, 15, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Krieg, S.M.; Sollmann, N.; Hauck, T.; Ille, S.; Meyer, B.; Ringel, F. Repeated mapping of cortical language sites by preoperative navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation compared to repeated intraoperative DCS mapping in awake craniotomy. BMC Neurosci. 2014, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ille, S.; Sollmann, N.; Butenschoen, V.M.; Meyer, B.; Ringel, F.; Krieg, S.M. Resection of highly language-eloquent brain lesions based purely on rTMS language mapping without awake surgery. Acta Neurochir. 2016, 158, 2265–2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Raabe, A.; Beck, J.; Schucht, P.; Seidel, K. Continuous dynamic mapping of the corticospinal tract during surgery of motor eloquent brain tumors: Evaluation of a new method. J. Neurosurg. 2014, 120, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Stummer, W.; Pichlmeier, U.; Meinel, T.; Wiestler, O.D.; Zanella, F.; Reulen, H.-J.; ALA-Glioma Study Group. Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: A randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006, 7, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Henderson, F.; Abdullah, K.G.; Verma, R.; Brem, S. Tractography and the connectome in neurosurgical treatment of gliomas: The premise, the progress, and the potential. Neurosurg. Focus 2020, 48, E6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gerritsen, J.K.W.; Zwarthoed, R.H.; Kilgallon, J.L.; Nawabi, N.L.; Jessurun, C.A.C.; Versyck, G.; Pruijn, K.P.; Fisher, F.L.; Larivière, E.; Solie, L.; et al. Effect of awake craniotomy in glioblastoma in eloquent areas (GLIOMAP): A propensity score-matched analysis of an international, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 802–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rossi, M.; Nibali, M.C.; Torregrossa, F.; Bello, L.; Grasso, G. Innovation in Neurosurgery: The Concept of Cognitive Mapping. World Neurosurg. 2019, 131, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Müller, D.M.J.; Robe, P.A.; Ardon, H.; Barkhof, F.; Bello, L.; Berger, M.S.; Bouwknegt, W.; Van den Brink, W.A.; Nibali, M.C.; Eijgelaar, R.S.; et al. Quantifying eloquent locations for glioblastoma surgery using resection probability maps. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 134, 1091–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Seidel, K.; Szelényi, A.; Bello, L. Intraoperative mapping and monitoring during brain tumor surgeries. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2022, 186, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Zhang, Y.; Phillips, J.J.; Morshed, R.A.; Young, J.S.; McCoy, L.; Lafontaine, M.; Luks, T.; Ammanuel, S.; Kakaizada, S.; et al. Interactive Effects of Molecular, Therapeutic, and Patient Factors on Outcome of Diffuse Low-Grade Glioma. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2023, JCO2102929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Young, J.S.; Al-Adli, N.; Sibih, Y.E.; Scotford, K.L.; Casey, M.; James, S.; Berger, M.S. Recognizing the psychological impact of a glioma diagnosis on mental and behavioral health: A systematic review of what neurosurgeons need to know. J. Neurosurg. 2022, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hu, Y.; Deng, F.; Zhang, L.; Hu, K.; Liu, S.; Zhong, S.; Yang, J.; Zeng, X.; Peng, X. Depression and Quality of Life in Patients with Gliomas: A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chaichana, K.L.; Halthore, A.N.; Parker, S.L.; Olivi, A.; Weingart, J.D.; Brem, H.; Quinones-Hinojosa, A. Factors involved in maintaining prolonged functional independence following supratentorial glioblastoma resection. J. Neurosurg. 2011, 114, 604–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Gerritsen, J.K.W.; Arends, L.; Klimek, M.; Dirven, C.M.F.; Vincent, A.J.-P.E. Impact of intraoperative stimulation mapping on high-grade glioma surgery outcome: A meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2019, 161, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Rossi, M.; Sciortino, T.; Nibali, M.C.; Gay, L.; Viganò, L.; Puglisi, G.; Leonetti, A.; Howells, H.; Fornia, L.; Cerri, G.; et al. Clinical pearls and methods for intraoperative motor mapping. Neurosurgery 2021, 88, 457–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sanai, N.; Berger, M.S. Surgical oncology for gliomas: The state of the art. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 15, 112–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Stieglitz, L.H.; Fichtner, J.; Andres, R.; Schucht, P.; Krähenbühl, A.-K.; Raabe, A.; Beck, J. The silent loss of neuronavigation accuracy: A systematic retrospective analysis of factors influencing the mismatch of frameless stereotactic systems in cranial neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 2013, 72, 796–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Gogos, A.J.; Young, J.S.; Morshed, R.A.; Avalos, L.N.; Noss, R.S.; Villanueva-Meyer, J.E.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Berger, M.S. Triple motor mapping: Transcranial, bipolar, and monopolar mapping for supratentorial glioma resection adjacent to motor pathways. J. Neurosurg. 2020, 134, 1728–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Spena, G.; Schucht, P.; Seidel, K.; Rutten, G.-J.; Freyschlag, C.F.; D’Agata, F.; Costi, E.; Zappa, F.; Fontanella, M.; Fontaine, D.; et al. Brain tumors in eloquent areas: A European multicenter survey of intraoperative mapping techniques, intraoperative seizures occurrence, and antiepileptic drug prophylaxis. Neurosurg. Rev. 2017, 40, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gallet, C.; Clavreul, A.; Morandi, X.; Delion, M.; Madec, N.; Menei, P.; Lemée, J.-M. What surgical approach for left-sided eloquent glioblastoma: Biopsy, resection under general anesthesia or awake craniotomy? J. Neurooncol. 2022, 160, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gerritsen, J. The PROGRAM-Study: Awake Mapping versus Asleep Mapping versus No Mapping for Glioblastoma Resections; National Library of Medicine: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2022. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04708171 (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  40. Gerritsen, J.K.W.; Klimek, M.; Dirven, C.M.F.; Hoop, E.O.; Wagemakers, M.; Rutten, G.J.M.; Kloet, A.; Hallaert, G.G.; Vincent, A.J.P.E. The SAFE-trial: Safe surgery for glioblastoma multiforme: Awake craniotomy versus surgery under general anesthesia. Study protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2020, 88, 105876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Berger, A.; Tzarfati, G.G.; Serafimova, M.; Valdes, P.; Meller, A.; Korn, A.; Kahana Levy, N.; Aviram, D.; Ram, Z.; Grossman, R. Risk factors and prognostic implications of surgery-related strokes following resection of high-grade glioma. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Han, S.J.; Morshed, R.A.; Troncon, I.; Jordan, K.M.; Henry, R.G.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Berger, M.S. Subcortical stimulation mapping of descending motor pathways for perirolandic gliomas: Assessment of morbidity and functional outcome in 702 cases. J. Neurosurg. 2018, 131, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Wu, J.S.; Zhou, L.F.; Tang, W.J.; Mao, Y.; Hu, J.; Song, Y.Y.; Hong, X.N.; Du, G.H. Clinical evaluation and follow-up outcome of diffusion tensor imaging-based functional neuronavigation: A prospective, controlled study in patients with gliomas involving pyramidal tracts. Neurosurgery 2007, 61, 935–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Abboud, T.; Asendorf, T.; Heinrich, J.; Faust, K.; Krieg, S.M.; Seidel, K.; Mielke, D.; Matthies, C.; Ringel, F.; Rohde, V.; et al. Transcranial versus Direct Cortical Stimulation for Motor-Evoked Potentials during Resection of Supratentorial Tumors under General Anesthesia (The TRANSEKT-Trial): Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Krieg, S.M.; Shiban, E.; Droese, D.; Gempt, J.; Buchmann, N.; Pape, H.; Ryang, Y.M.; Meyer, B.; Ringel, F. Predictive value and safety of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring with motor evoked potentials in glioma surgery. Neurosurgery 2012, 70, 1060–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Abboud, T.; Schaper, M.; Dührsen, L.; Schwarz, C.; Schmidt, N.O.; Westphal, M.; Martens, T. A novel threshold criterion in transcranial motor evoked potentials during surgery for gliomas close to the motor pathway. J. Neurosurg. 2016, 125, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Zhang, K.; Gelb, A.W. Awake craniotomy: Indications, benefits, and techniques. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. 2018, 46, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Suarez-Meade, P.; Marenco-Hillembrand, L.; Prevatt, C.; Murguia-Fuentes, R.; Mohamed, A.; Alsaeed, T.; Lehrer, E.J.; Brigham, T.; Ruiz-Garcia, H.; Sabsevitz, D.; et al. Awake vs. asleep motor mapping for glioma resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2020, 162, 1709–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eseonu, C.I.; Rincon-Torroella, J.; ReFaey, K.; Lee, Y.M.; Nangiana, J.; Vivas-Buitrago, T.; Quiñones-Hinojosa, A. Awake Craniotomy vs. Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia for Perirolandic Gliomas: Evaluating Perioperative Complications and Extent of Resection. Neurosurgery 2017, 81, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rossi, M.; Puglisi, G.; Nibali, M.C.; Viganò, L.; Sciortino, T.; Gay, L.; Leonetti, A.; Zito, P.; Riva, M.; Bello, L. Asleep or awake motor mapping for resection of perirolandic glioma in the nondominant hemisphere? Development and validation of a multimodal score to tailor the surgical strategy. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 136, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rossi, M.; Nibali, M.C.; Viganò, L.; Puglisi, G.; Howells, H.; Gay, L.; Sciortino, T.; Leonetti, A.; Riva, M.; Fornia, L.; et al. Resection of tumors within the primary motor cortex using high-frequency stimulation: Oncological and functional efficiency of this versatile approach based on clinical conditions. J. Neurosurg. 2020, 133, 642–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Szelényi, A.; Bello, L.; Duffau, H.; Fava, E.; Feigl, G.C.; Galanda, M.; Neuloh, G.; Signorelli, F.; Sala, F. Intraoperative electrical stimulation in awake craniotomy: Methodological aspects of current practice. Neurosurg. Focus 2010, 28, E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Magill, S.T.; Han, S.J.; Li, J.; Berger, M.S. Resection of primary motor cortex tumors: Feasibility and surgical outcomes. J. Neurosurg. 2017, 129, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Gupta, D.K.; Chandra, P.S.; Ojha, B.K.; Sharma, B.S.; Mahapatra, A.K.; Mehta, V.S. Awake craniotomy versus surgery under general anesthesia for resection of intrinsic lesions of eloquent cortex—A prospective randomised study. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2007, 109, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shinoura, N.; Midorikawa, A.; Yamada, R.; Hiromitsu, K.; Itoi, C.; Saito, S.; Yagi, K. Operative Strategies during Awake Surgery Affect Deterioration of Paresis a Month after Surgery for Brain Lesions in the Primary Motor Area. J. Neurol. Surg. Part Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2017, 78, 368–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Young, J.S.; Gogos, A.J.; Aabedi, A.A.; Morshed, R.A.; Pereira, M.P.; Lashof-Regas, S.; Mansoori, Z.; Luks, T.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Villanueva-Meyer, J.E.; et al. Resection of supplementary motor area gliomas: Revisiting supplementary motor syndrome and the role of the frontal aslant tract. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 136, 1278–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ulu, M.O.; Tanriverd, T.; Uzan, M. Surgical Treatment of Lesions Involving the Supplementary Motor Area: Clinical results of 12 patients. Turk. Neurosurg. 2008, 18, 286–293. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kumar, G.K.; Chigurupalli, C.; Balasubramaniam, A.; Rajesh, B.; Manohar, N. Role of Asleep Surgery for Supplementary Motor Area Tumors. Indian J. Neurosurg. 2022, s-0042-1743266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Briggs, R.G.; Allan, P.G.; Poologaindran, A.; Dadario, N.B.; Young, I.M.; Ahsan, S.A.; Teo, C.; Sughrue, M.E. The Frontal Aslant Tract and Supplementary Motor Area Syndrome: Moving towards a Connectomic Initiation Axis. Cancers 2021, 13, 1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Palmisciano, P.; Haider, A.S.; Balasubramanian, K.; Dadario, N.B.; Robertson, F.C.; Silverstein, J.W.; D’Amico, R.S. Supplementary Motor Area Syndrome After Brain Tumor Surgery: A Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. 2022, 165, 160–171.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nakajima, R.; Kinoshita, M.; Yahata, T.; Nakada, M. Recovery time from supplementary motor area syndrome: Relationship to postoperative day 7 paralysis and damage of the cingulum. J. Neurosurg. 2019, 132, 865–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Tuncer, M.; Fekonja, L.; Ott, S.; Engelhardt, M.; Faust, K.; Karbe, A.-G.; Picht, T.; Dührsen, L.; Vajkoczy, P.; Onken, J.; et al. Supplementary Motor Area Syndrome in Glioma Surgery—Towards a Classification System Based on Clinical and Imaging Data; German Medical Science GMS Publishing House: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2021; p. DocV236. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kim, Y.-H.; Kim, C.H.; Kim, J.S.; Lee, S.K.; Han, J.H.; Kim, C.-Y.; Chung, C.K. Risk factor analysis of the development of new neurological deficits following supplementary motor area resection. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 119, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Peraud, A.; Meschede, M.; Eisner, W.; Ilmberger, J.; Reulen, H.-J. Surgical resection of grade II astrocytomas in the superior frontal gyrus. Neurosurgery 2002, 50, 966–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Young, J.S.; Morshed, R.A.; Mansoori, Z.; Cha, S.; Berger, M.S. Disruption of Frontal Aslant Tract Is Not Associated with Long-Term Postoperative Language Deficits. World Neurosurg. 2020, 133, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Rossi, M.; Viganò, L.; Puglisi, G.; Nibali, M.C.; Leonetti, A.; Gay, L.; Sciortino, T.; Fornia, L.; Callipo, V.; Lamperti, M.; et al. Targeting Primary Motor Cortex (M1) Functional Components in M1 Gliomas Enhances Safe Resection and Reveals M1 Plasticity Potentials. Cancers 2021, 13, 3808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Taniguchi, M.; Cedzich, C.; Schramm, J. Modification of cortical stimulation for motor evoked potentials under general anesthesia: Technical description. Neurosurgery 1993, 32, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kombos, T.; Suess, O.; Kern, B.-C.; Funk, T.; Hoell, T.; Kopetsch, O.; Brock, M. Comparison Between Monopolar and Bipolar Electrical Stimulation of the Motor Cortex. Acta Neurochir. 1999, 141, 1295–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kombos, T.; Suess, O.; Funk, T.; Kern, B.C.; Brock, M. Intra-Operative Mapping of the Motor Cortex During Surgery in and Around the Motor Cortex. Acta Neurochir. 2000, 142, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Kombos, T.; Süss, O. Neurophysiological basis of direct cortical stimulation and applied neuroanatomy of the motor cortex: A review. Neurosurg. Focus 2009, 27, E3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Tate, M.C.; Guo, L.; McEvoy, J.; Chang, E.F. Safety and Efficacy of Motor Mapping Utilizing Short Pulse Train Direct Cortical Stimulation. Stereotact. Funct. Neurosurg. 2013, 91, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Seidel, K.; Beck, J.; Stieglitz, L.; Schucht, P.; Raabe, A. The warning-sign hierarchy between quantitative subcortical motor mapping and continuous motor evoked potential monitoring during resection of supratentorial brain tumors: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 118, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Nguyen, A.M.; Huynh, N.T.; Nguyen, T.T.P. Intraoperative cortical and subcortical stimulation for lesions related to eloquent motor cortex and corticospinal tract in a developing country. Interdiscip. Neurosurg. 2022, 30, 101601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kreidenhuber, R.; De Tiège, X.; Rampp, S. Presurgical Functional Cortical Mapping Using Electromagnetic Source Imaging. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. You, H.; Qiao, H. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring During Resection of Gliomas Involving Eloquent Areas. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 658680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Borchers, S.; Himmelbach, M.; Logothetis, N.; Karnath, H.-O. Direct electrical stimulation of human cortex—the gold standard for mapping brain functions? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. MacDonald, D.B.; Dong, C.C.; Uribe, A. Intraoperative evoked potential techniques. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2022, 186, 39–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cedzich, C.; Taniguchi, M.; Schäfer, S.; Schramm, J. Somatosensory Evoked Potential Phase Reversal and Direct Motor Cortex Stimulation during Surgery in and around the Central Region. Neurosurgery 1996, 38, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Holdefer, R.N.; MacDonald, D.B.; Skinner, S.A. Somatosensory and motor evoked potentials as biomarkers for post-operative neurological status. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015, 126, 857–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Thirumala, P.; Lai, D.; Engh, J.; Habeych, M.; Crammond, D.; Balzer, J. Predictive Value of Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring during Resection of Intraparenchymal and Intraventricular Tumors Using an Endoscopic Port. J. Clin. Neurol. 2013, 9, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Rosenstock, T.; Tuncer, M.S.; Münch, M.R.; Vajkoczy, P.; Picht, T.; Faust, K. Preoperative nTMS and Intraoperative Neurophysiology—A Comparative Analysis in Patients With Motor-Eloquent Glioma. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 676626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Duffau, H.; Capelle, L.; Denvil, D.; Sichez, N.; Gatignol, P.; Taillandier, L.; Lopes, M.; Mitchell, M.-C.; Roche, S.; Muller, J.-C.; et al. Usefulness of intraoperative electrical subcortical mapping during surgery for low-grade gliomas located within eloquent brain regions: Functional results in a consecutive series of 103 patients. J. Neurosurg. 2003, 98, 764–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Haglund, M.M.; Berger, M.S.; Shamseldin, M.; Lettich, E.; Ojemann, G.A. Cortical Localization of Temporal Lobe Language Sites in Patients with Gliomas. Neurosurgery 1994, 34, 567. [Google Scholar]
  84. Quiñones-Hinojosa, A.; Ojemann, S.G.; Sanai, N.; Dillon, W.P.; Berger, M.S. Preoperative correlation of intraoperative cortical mapping with magnetic resonance imaging landmarks to predict localization of the Broca area. J. Neurosurg. 2003, 99, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Keles, G.E.; Lundin, D.A.; Lamborn, K.R.; Chang, E.F.; Ojemann, G.; Berger, M.S. Intraoperative subcortical stimulation mapping for hemispheric perirolandic gliomas located within or adjacent to the descending motor pathways: Evaluation of morbidity and assessment of functional outcome in 294 patients. J. Neurosurg. 2004, 100, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Chang, E.F.; Clark, A.; Smith, J.S.; Polley, M.-Y.; Chang, S.M.; Barbaro, N.M.; Parsa, A.T.; McDermott, M.W.; Berger, M.S. Functional mapping–guided resection of low-grade gliomas in eloquent areas of the brain: Improvement of long-term survival: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 2011, 114, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Herholz, K.; Thiel, A.; Wienhard, K.; Pietrzyk, U.; von Stockhausen, H.-M.; Karbe, H.; Kessler, J.; Bruckbauer, T.; Halber, M.; Heiss, W.-D. Individual Functional Anatomy of Verb Generation. NeuroImage 1996, 3, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Ojemann, G.A. Individual variability in cortical localization of language. J. Neurosurg. 1979, 50, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Skirboll, S.S.; Ojemann, G.A.; Berger, M.S.; Lettich, E.; Winn, H.R. Functional Cortex and Subcortical White Matter Located within Gliomas. Neurosurgery 1996, 38, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Ojemann, J.G.; Miller, J.W.; Silbergeld, D.L. Preserved Function in Brain Invaded by Tumor. Neurosurgery 1996, 39, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ulmer, J.L.; Hacein-Bey, L.; Mathews, V.P.; Mueller, W.M.; DeYoe, E.A.; Prost, R.W.; Meyer, G.A.; Krouwer, H.G.; Schmainda, K.M. Lesion-induced pseudo-dominance at functional magnetic resonance imaging: Implications for preoperative assessments. Neurosurgery 2004, 55, 569–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pasquini, L.; Di Napoli, A.; Rossi-Espagnet, M.C.; Visconti, E.; Napolitano, A.; Romano, A.; Bozzao, A.; Peck, K.K.; Holodny, A.I. Understanding Language Reorganization With Neuroimaging: How Language Adapts to Different Focal Lesions and Insights Into Clinical Applications. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2022, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Pasquini, L.; Jenabi, M.; Yildirim, O.; Silveira, P.; Peck, K.K.; Holodny, A.I. Brain Functional Connectivity in Low- and High-Grade Gliomas: Differences in Network Dynamics Associated with Tumor Grade and Location. Cancers 2022, 14, 3327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Pasquini, L.; Jenabi, M.; Peck, K.K.; Holodny, A.I. Language reorganization in patients with left-hemispheric gliomas is associated with increased cortical volume in language-related areas and in the default mode network. Cortex 2022, 157, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Giussani, C.; Roux, F.-E.; Ojemann, J.; Sganzerla, E.P.; Pirillo, D.; Papagno, C. Is Preoperative Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reliable for Language Areas Mapping in Brain Tumor Surgery? Review of Language Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Direct Cortical Stimulation Correlation Studies. Neurosurgery 2010, 66, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shi, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yao, B.; Sun, P.; Hao, Y.; Piao, H.; Zhao, X. Application of Multiparametric Intraoperative Ultrasound in Glioma Surgery. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 6651726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Goryaynov, S.A.; Buklina, S.B.; Khapov, I.V.; Batalov, A.I.; Potapov, A.A.; Pronin, I.N.; Belyaev, A.U.; Aristov, A.A.; Zhukov, V.U.; Pavlova, G.V.; et al. 5-ALA-guided tumor resection during awake speech mapping in gliomas located in eloquent speech areas: Single-center experience. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 940951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Lu, J.; Wu, J.; Yao, C.; Zhuang, D.; Qiu, T.; Hu, X.; Zhang, J.; Gong, X.; Liang, W.; Mao, Y.; et al. Awake language mapping and 3-Tesla intraoperative MRI-guided volumetric resection for gliomas in language areas. J. Clin. Neurosci. 2013, 20, 1280–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Li, J.; Lau, D.; Molinaro, A.M.; Perry, D.W.; Meng, L.; Berger, M.S. Awake craniotomy to maximize glioma resection: Methods and technical nuances over a 27-year period. J. Neurosurg. 2015, 123, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Morshed, R.A.; Young, J.S.; Lee, A.T.; Berger, M.S.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L. Clinical Pearls and Methods for Intraoperative Awake Language Mapping. Neurosurgery 2020, 89, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Krivosheya, D.; Prabhu, S.S.; Weinberg, J.S.; Sawaya, R. Technical principles in glioma surgery and preoperative considerations. J. Neurooncol. 2016, 130, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Gerritsen, J.K.W.; Rizopoulos, D.; Schouten, J.W.; Haitsma, I.K.; Eralp, I.; Klimek, M.; Dirven, C.M.F.; Vincent, A.J.P.E. Impact of dedicated neuro-anesthesia management on clinical outcomes in glioblastoma patients: A single-institution cohort study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0278864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Stevanovic, A.; Rossaint, R.; Veldeman, M.; Bilotta, F.; Coburn, M. Anaesthesia Management for Awake Craniotomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Gogos, A.J.; Young, J.S.; Morshed, R.A.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Berger, M.S. Awake glioma surgery: Technical evolution and nuances. J. Neurooncol. 2020, 147, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Molina, E.S.; Schipmann, S.; Mueller, I.; Wölfer, J.; Ewelt, C.; Maas, M.; Brokinkel, B.; Stummer, W. Conscious sedation with dexmedetomidine compared with asleep-awake-asleep craniotomies in glioma surgery: An analysis of 180 patients. J. Neurosurg. 2018, 129, 1223–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. De Witte, E.; Satoer, D.; Robert, E.; Colle, H.; Verheyen, S.; Visch-Brink, E.; Mariën, P. The Dutch Linguistic Intraoperative Protocol: A valid linguistic approach to awake brain surgery. Brain Lang. 2015, 140, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Aabedi, A.A.; Kakaizada, S.; Young, J.S.; Ahn, E.; Weissman, D.H.; Berger, M.S.; Brang, D.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L. Balancing task sensitivity with reliability for multimodal language assessments. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 135, 1817–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Roux, F.-E.; Durand, J.-B.; Djidjeli, I.; Moyse, E.; Giussani, C. Variability of intraoperative electrostimulation parameters in conscious individuals: Language cortex. J. Neurosurg. 2017, 126, 1641–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Sanai, N.; Berger, M.S. Operative techniques for gliomas and the value of extent of resection. Neurotherapeutics 2009, 6, 478–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Verst, S.M.; de Aguiar, P.H.P.; Joaquim, M.A.S.; Vieira, V.G.; Sucena, A.B.C.; Maldaun, M.V.C. Monopolar 250–500 Hz language mapping: Results of 41 patients. Clin. Neurophysiol. Pract. 2019, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Riva, M.; Fava, E.; Gallucci, M.; Comi, A.; Casarotti, A.; Alfiero, T.; Raneri, F.A.; Pessina, F.; Bello, L. Monopolar high-frequency language mapping: Can it help in the surgical management of gliomas? A comparative clinical study. J. Neurosurg. 2016, 124, 1479–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Muster, R.H.; Young, J.S.; Woo, P.Y.M.; Morshed, R.A.; Warrier, G.; Kakaizada, S.; Molinaro, A.M.; Berger, M.S.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L. The Relationship Between Stimulation Current and Functional Site Localization During Brain Mapping. Neurosurgery 2021, 88, 1043–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. LeRoux, P.D.; Berger, M.S.; Ojemann, G.A.; Wang, K.; Mack, L.A. Correlation of intraoperative ultrasound tumor volumes and margins with preoperative computerized tomography scans. An intraoperative method to enhance tumor resection. J. Neurosurg. 1989, 71, 691–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Duffau, H. The huge plastic potential of adult brain and the role of connectomics: New insights provided by serial mappings in glioma surgery. Cortex 2014, 58, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Aabedi, A.A.; Young, J.S.; Chang, E.F.; Berger, M.S.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L. Involvement of White Matter Language Tracts in Glioma: Clinical Implications, Operative Management, and Functional Recovery After Injury. Front. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 932478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Young, J.S.; Lee, A.T.; Chang, E.F. A Review of Cortical and Subcortical Stimulation Mapping for Language. Neurosurgery 2021, 89, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Rofes, A.; Miceli, G. Language Mapping with Verbs and Sentences in Awake Surgery: A Review. Neuropsychol. Rev. 2014, 24, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Coello, A.F.; Moritz-Gasser, S.; Martino, J.; Martinoni, M.; Matsuda, R.; Duffau, H. Selection of intraoperative tasks for awake mapping based on relationships between tumor location and functional networks: A review. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 119, 1380–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Mandonnet, E.; Sarubbo, S.; Duffau, H. Proposal of an optimized strategy for intraoperative testing of speech and language during awake mapping. Neurosurg. Rev. 2017, 40, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Satoer, D.; Visch-Brink, E.; Dirven, C.; Vincent, A. Glioma surgery in eloquent areas: Can we preserve cognition? Acta Neurochir. 2016, 158, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Ruis, C. Monitoring cognition during awake brain surgery in adults: A systematic review. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2018, 40, 1081–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Bu, L.; Lu, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, J. Intraoperative Cognitive Mapping Tasks for Direct Electrical Stimulation in Clinical and Neuroscientific Contexts. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 612891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Weyer-Jamora, C.; Brie, M.S.; Luks, T.L.; Smith, E.M.; Braunstein, S.E.; Villanueva-Meyer, J.E.; Bracci, P.M.; Chang, S.; Hervey-Jumper, S.L.; Taylor, J.W. Cognitive impact of lower-grade gliomas and strategies for rehabilitation. Neuro-Oncol. Pract. 2020, 8, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Cochereau, J.; Lemaitre, A.-L.; Wager, M.; Moritz-Gasser, S.; Duffau, H.; Herbet, G. Network-behavior mapping of lasting executive impairments after low-grade glioma surgery. Brain Struct. Funct. 2020, 225, 2415–2429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Wager, M.; Du Boisgueheneuc, F.; Pluchon, C.; Bouyer, C.; Stal, V.; Bataille, B.; Guillevin, C.M.; Gil, R. Intraoperative Monitoring of an Aspect of Executive Functions: Administration of the Stroop Test in 9 Adult Patients During Awake Surgery for Resection of Frontal Glioma. Oper. Neurosurg. 2013, 72, ons169–ons181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Puglisi, G.; Sciortino, T.; Rossi, M.; Leonetti, A.; Fornia, L.; Nibali, M.C.; Casarotti, A.; Pessina, F.; Riva, M.; Cerri, G.; et al. Preserving executive functions in nondominant frontal lobe glioma surgery: An intraoperative tool. J. Neurosurg. 2018, 131, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Erez, Y.; Assem, M.; Coelho, P.; Romero-Garcia, R.; Owen, M.; McDonald, A.; Woodberry, E.; Morris, R.C.; Price, S.J.; Suckling, J.; et al. Intraoperative mapping of executive function using electrocorticography for patients with low-grade gliomas. Acta Neurochir. 2021, 163, 1299–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nakajima, R.; Kinoshita, M.; Okita, H.; Yahata, T.; Matsui, M.; Nakada, M. Neural Networks Mediating High-Level Mentalizing in Patients With Right Cerebral Hemispheric Gliomas. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Nakajima, R.; Kinoshita, M.; Okita, H.; Liu, Z.; Nakada, M. Preserving Right Pre-motor and Posterior Prefrontal Cortices Contribute to Maintaining Overall Basic Emotion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 612890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Giussani, C.; Pirillo, D.; Roux, F.-E. Mirror of the soul: A cortical stimulation study on recognition of facial emotions: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 2010, 112, 520–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Sartorius, C.J.; Berger, M.S. Rapid termination of intraoperative stimulation-evoked seizures with application of cold Ringer’s lactate to the cortex. Technical note. J. Neurosurg. 1998, 88, 349–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Larkin, C.J.; Yerneni, K.; Karras, C.L.; Abecassis, Z.A.; Zhou, G.; Zelano, C.; Selner, A.N.; Templer, J.W.; Tate, M.C. Impact of intraoperative direct cortical stimulation dynamics on perioperative seizures and afterdischarge frequency in patients undergoing awake craniotomy. J. Neurosurg. 2022, 137, 1853–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Morsy, A.A.; Ismail, A.M.; Nasr, Y.M.; Waly, S.H.; Abdelhameed, E.A. Predictors of stimulation-induced seizures during perirolandic glioma resection using intraoperative mapping techniques. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2021, 12, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Nossek, E.; Matot, I.; Shahar, T.; Barzilai, O.; Rapoport, Y.; Gonen, T.; Sela, G.; Korn, A.; Hayat, D.; Ram, Z. Failed awake craniotomy: A retrospective analysis in 424 patients undergoing craniotomy for brain tumor: Clinical article. J. Neurosurg. 2013, 118, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Mamani, R.; Jacobo, J.A.; Mejia, S.; Nuñez-Velasco, S.; Aragon-Arreola, J.; Moreno, S. Analysis of Intraoperative Seizures During Bipolar Brain Mapping in Eloquent Areas: Intraoperative Seizures in brain mapping. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2020, 199, 106304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Abecassis, Z.A.; Ayer, A.B.; Templer, J.W.; Yerneni, K.; Murthy, N.K.; Tate, M.C. Analysis of risk factors and clinical sequelae of direct electrical cortical stimulation–induced seizures and afterdischarges in patients undergoing awake mapping. J. Neurosurg. 2020, 134, 1610–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. MacDonald, D.B.; Skinner, S.; Shils, J.; Yingling, C. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring—A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013, 124, 2291–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Neuloh, G.; Pechstein, U.; Schramm, J. Motor tract monitoring during insular glioma surgery. J. Neurosurg. 2007, 106, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Wiedemayer, H.; Fauser, B.; Sandalcioglu, I.E.; Schäfer, H.; Stolke, D. The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring on surgical decisions: A critical analysis of 423 cases. J. Neurosurg. 2002, 96, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Collée, E.; Vincent, A.; Dirven, C.; Satoer, D. Speech and Language Errors during Awake Brain Surgery and Postoperative Language Outcome in Glioma Patients: A Systematic Review. Cancers 2022, 14, 5466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Conte, V.; Magni, L.; Songa, V.; Tomaselli, P.; Ghisoni, L.; Magnoni, S.; Bello, L.; Stocchetti, N. Analysis of Propofol/Remifentanil Infusion Protocol for Tumor Surgery With Intraoperative Brain Mapping. J. Neurosurg. Anesthesiol. 2010, 22, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Sarang, A.; Dinsmore, J. Anaesthesia for awake craniotomy—Evolution of a technique that facilitates awake neurological testing. Br. J. Anaesth. 2003, 90, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Keifer, J.C.; Dentchev, D.; Little, K.; Warner, D.S.; Friedman, A.H.; Borel, C.O. A Retrospective Analysis of a Remifentanil/Propofol General Anesthetic for Craniotomy Before Awake Functional Brain Mapping. Anesth. Analg. 2005, 101, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  144. Skucas, A.P.; Artru, A.A. Anesthetic Complications of Awake Craniotomies for Epilepsy Surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2006, 102, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Elia, A.; Young, J.S.; Simboli, G.A.; Roux, A.; Moiraghi, A.; Trancart, B.; Al-Adli, N.; Aboubakr, O.; Bedioui, A.; Leclerc, A.; et al. A preoperative scoring system to predict function-based resection limitation due to insufficient participation during awake surgery. Neurosurgery 2023, 12, 938996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Abaziou, T.; Tincres, F.; Mrozek, S.; Brauge, D.; Marhar, F.; Delamarre, L.; Menut, R.; Larcher, C.; Osinski, D.; Cinotti, R.; et al. Incidence and predicting factors of perioperative complications during monitored anesthesia care for awake craniotomy. J. Clin. Anesth. 2020, 64, 109811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Eseonu, C.I.; ReFaey, K.; Garcia, O.; John, A.; Quiñones-Hinojosa, A.; Tripathi, P. Awake Craniotomy Anesthesia: A Comparison of the Monitored Anesthesia Care and Asleep-Awake-Asleep Techniques. World Neurosurg. 2017, 104, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Ongoing clinical trials for glioma surgery.
Table 1. Ongoing clinical trials for glioma surgery.
Study Name (NCT)InterventionsPrimary EndpointSecondary EndpointEst. EnrollmentStart DateEst. End Date
PROGRAM (NCT04708171) [39]Awake mapping Asleep mapping Asleep no mappingNIHSS, EOROS, PFS, Onco-functional outcome, SAE, RTV, MRC motor4531 January 20221 October 2026
SAFE (NCT03861299) [40]Awake craniotomy
Asleep craniotomy		NIHSS, EOREQ-5D, EORTC-QLQ-BN20/C30, OS, PFS, SAE2461 April 20191 April 2024
Abbreviations: NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; EOR, extent of resection; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SAE, serious adverse events; RTV, residual tumor volume.
Table
Table 3. Intraoperative tasks for assessing executive function.
Table 3. Intraoperative tasks for assessing executive function.
TaskFunctionResult
ST/iST [125,126]Selective attention and inhibitionFeasible and associated with improved deficits at 3 months
WAIS-III-PA [128]Social cognition Feasible and associated with maintenance of baseline performance at 3 months
mJFE [129]Basic emotionPositive sites preserved, postoperative decline in function, 3-month improvement
Facial expression pictures [130]Emotional recognitionNo postoperative deficits when positive sites were preserved
Abbreviations: ST, Stroop test, iST, intraoperative Stroop test; WAIS-III-PA, Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale, 3rd edition—picture association; mJFE, modified Japanese facial expressions of basic emotions test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Adli, N.N.; Young, J.S.; Sibih, Y.E.; Berger, M.S. Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients. Cancers 2023, 15, 2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15072173

AMA Style

Al-Adli NN, Young JS, Sibih YE, Berger MS. Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients. Cancers. 2023; 15(7):2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15072173

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Adli, Nadeem N., Jacob S. Young, Youssef E. Sibih, and Mitchel S. Berger. 2023. "Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients" Cancers 15, no. 7: 2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15072173

APA Style

Al-Adli, N. N., Young, J. S., Sibih, Y. E., & Berger, M. S. (2023). Technical Aspects of Motor and Language Mapping in Glioma Patients. Cancers, 15(7), 2173. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15072173

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop