Intraoperative electrocortical stimulation of Brodman area 4: a 10-year analysis of 255 cases

BACKGROUND: Brain tumor surgery is limited by the risk of postoperative neurological deficits. Intraoperative neurophysiological examination techniques, which are based on the electrical excitability of the human brain cortex, are thus still indispensable for surgery in eloquent areas such as the primary motor cortex (Brodman Area 4). METHODS: This study analyzed the data obtained from a total of 255 cerebral interventions for lesions with direct contact to (121) or immediately adjacent to (134) Brodman Area 4 in order to optimize stimulation parameters and to search for direct correlation between intraoperative potential changes and specific surgical maneuvers when using monopolar cortex stimulation (MCS) for electrocortical mapping and continuous intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. RESULTS: Compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) were recorded from the thenar muscles and forearm flexors in accordance with the large representational area of the hand and forearm in Brodman Area 4. By optimizing the stimulation parameters in two steps (step 1: stimulation frequency and step 2: train sequence) MCS was successful in 91% (232/255) of the cases. Statistical analysis of the parameters latency, potential width and amplitude showed spontaneous latency prolongations and abrupt amplitude reductions as a reliable warning signal for direct involvement of the motor cortex or motor pathways. CONCLUSION: MCS must be considered a stimulation technique that enables reliable qualitative analysis of the recorded potentials, which may thus be regarded as directly predictive. Nevertheless, like other intraoperative neurophysiological examination techniques, MCS has technical, anatomical and neurophysiological limitations. A variety of surgical and non-surgical influences can be reason for false positive or false negative measurements

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for functional impairment after intracranial tumor surgery

OBJECTIVE Decision-making for intracranial tumor surgery requires balancing the oncological benefit against the risk for resection-related impairment. Risk estimates are commonly based on subjective experience and generalized num-bers from the literature, but even experienced surgeons overestimate functional outcome after surgery. Today, there is no reliable and objective way to preoperatively predict an individual patient's risk of experiencing any functional impair-ment. METHODS The authors developed a prediction model for functional impairment at 3 to 6 months after microsurgical resection, defined as a decrease in Karnofsky Performance Status of >= 10 points. Two prospective registries in Swit- zerland and Italy were used for development. External validation was performed in 7 cohorts from Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands. Age, sex, prior surgery, tumor histology and maximum diameter, expected major brain vessel or cranial nerve manipulation, resection in eloquent areas and the posterior fossa, and surgical approach were recorded. Discrimination and calibration metrics were evaluated. RESULTS In the development (2437 patients, 48.2% male; mean age +/- SD: 55 +/- 15 years) and external validation (2427 patients, 42.4% male; mean age +/- SD: 58 +/- 13 years) cohorts, functional impairment rates were 21.5% and 28.5%, respectively. In the development cohort, area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) were observed. In the pooled external validation cohort, the AUC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74), confirming generalizability. Calibration plots indicated fair calibration in both cohorts. The tool has been incorporated into a web-based application available at https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/impairment/. CONCLUSIONS Functional impairment after intracranial tumor surgery remains extraordinarily difficult to predict, al- though machine learning can help quantify risk. This externally validated prediction tool can serve as the basis for case by-case discussions and risk-to-benefit estimation of surgical treatment in the individual patient.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/