Combined use of minimal access craniotomy, intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging, and awake functional mapping for the resection of gliomas in 61 patients.

ADC = apparent diffusion coefficient DTI = diffusion tensor imaging DVT = deep vein thrombosis DWI = diffusion-weighted imaging ECoG = electrocorticography EMR = electronic medical record EOR = extent of resection IMRIS = iMRI suite IV = intravenous KPS = Karnofsky Performance Scale LMA = laryngeal mask airway MPRAGE = magnetization prepared rapid gradient echo OR = operating room SMA = supplementary motor area awake craniotomy awake functional mapping fMRI = functional MRI glioma resection iMRI iMRI = intraoperative MRI intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging minimal access craniotomy oncology surgical technique

Journal

Journal of neurosurgery
ISSN: 1933-0693
Titre abrégé: J Neurosurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0253357

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 Jan 2019
Historique:
received: 22 06 2018
accepted: 10 09 2018
entrez: 27 1 2019
pubmed: 27 1 2019
medline: 27 1 2019
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

OBJECTIVECurrent management of gliomas involves a multidisciplinary approach, including a combination of maximal safe resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. The use of intraoperative MRI (iMRI) helps to maximize extent of resection (EOR), and use of awake functional mapping supports preservation of eloquent areas of the brain. This study reports on the combined use of these surgical adjuncts.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of patients with gliomas who underwent minimal access craniotomy in their iMRI suite (IMRIS) with awake functional mapping between 2010 and 2017. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, and treatment details were obtained. Volumetric analysis of preoperative tumor volume as well as intraoperative and postoperative residual volumes was performed.RESULTSA total of 61 patients requiring 62 tumor resections met the inclusion criteria. Of the tumors resected, 45.9% were WHO grade I or II and 54.1% were WHO grade III or IV. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring modalities included speech alone in 23 cases (37.1%), motor alone in 24 (38.7%), and both speech and motor in 15 (24.2%). Intraoperative MRI demonstrated residual tumor in 48 cases (77.4%), 41 (85.4%) of whom underwent further resection. Median EOR on iMRI and postoperative MRI was 86.0% and 98.5%, respectively, with a mean difference of 10% and a median difference of 10.5% (p < 0.001). Seventeen of 62 cases achieved an increased EOR > 15% related to use of iMRI. Seventeen (60.7%) of 28 low-grade gliomas and 10 (30.3%) of 33 high-grade gliomas achieved complete resection. Significant intraoperative events included at least temporary new or worsened speech alteration in 7 of 38 cases who underwent speech mapping (18.4%), new or worsened weakness in 7 of 39 cases who underwent motor mapping (18.0%), numbness in 2 cases (3.2%), agitation in 2 (3.2%), and seizures in 2 (3.2%). Among the patients with new intraoperative deficits, 2 had residual speech difficulty, and 2 had weakness postoperatively, which improved to baseline strength by 6 months.CONCLUSIONSIn this retrospective case series, the combined use of iMRI and awake functional mapping was demonstrated to be safe and feasible. This combined approach allows one to achieve the dual goals of maximal tumor removal and minimal functional consequences in patients undergoing glioma resection.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30684941
doi: 10.3171/2018.9.JNS181802
pii: 2018.9.JNS181802
doi:
pii:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1-9

Auteurs

Benjamin B Whiting (BB)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.
2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Bryan S Lee (BS)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.
2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Vaidehi Mahadev (V)

3School of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown.

Hamid Borghei-Razavi (H)

4Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Sanchit Ahuja (S)

5Department of General Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; and.

Xuefei Jia (X)

6Quantitative Health Sciences, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Alireza M Mohammadi (AM)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.
2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
4Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Gene H Barnett (GH)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.
2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
4Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Lilyana Angelov (L)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.
2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
4Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Shobana Rajan (S)

5Department of General Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; and.

Rafi Avitsian (R)

5Department of General Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland; and.

Michael A Vogelbaum (MA)

1Department of Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.
2Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
4Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland.

Classifications MeSH