Transcranial versus direct electrical stimulation for intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring: Prognostic value comparison in asleep brain tumor surgery
Luca Viganò,Vincenzo Callipo,Marta Lamperti,Marco Rossi,Marco Conti Nibali,Tommaso Sciortino,Lorenzo Gay,Guglielmo Puglisi,Antonella Leonetti,Gabriella Cerri,Lorenzo Bello
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.963669
IF: 4.7
2022-09-30
Frontiers in Oncology
Abstract:Objective: Safe resection of gliomas involving motor pathways in asleep-anesthesia requires the combination of brain mapping, to identify and spare essential motor sites, and continuous monitoring of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), to detect possible vascular damage to the corticospinal tract (CST). MEP monitoring, according to intraoperative neurophysiology societies, is generally recommended by transcranial electrodes (TES), and no clear indications of direct cortical stimulation (DCS) or the preferential use of one of the two techniques based on the clinical context is available. The main aim of the study was to identify the best technique(s) based on different clinical conditions, evaluating the efficacy and prognostic value of both methodologies. Methods: A retrospective series of patients with tumors involving the motor pathways who underwent surgical resection with the aid of brain mapping and combined MEP monitoring via TES and DCS was evaluated. Irreversible MEP amplitude reduction (>50% compared to baseline) was used as an intraoperative warning and correlated to the postoperative motor outcome. Selectivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were computed for both techniques. Results: Four hundred sixty-two patients were retrospectively analyzed, and only 1.9% showed a long-term motor impairment. Both TES and DCS obtained high specificity and NPV for the acute and 1-month motor deficit. Sensitivity was rather low for the acute deficit but excellent considering the 1-month follow-up for both techniques. DCS was extremely reliable in predicting a postoperative motor decline (PPV of 100% and 90% for acute and long-term deficit, respectively). Conversely, TES produced a high number of false-positive results, especially for long-term deficits (65, 87.8% of all warnings) therefore obtaining poor PPV values (18% and 12% for acute and 1-month deficits, respectively). TES false-positive results were significantly associated with parietal tumors and lateral patient positioning. Conclusions: Data support the use of mapping and combined monitoring via TES and DCS. The sole TES monitoring is reliable in most procedures but not in parietal tumors or those requiring lateral positioning. Although no indications are available in international guidelines, DCS should be recommended, particularly for cases approached by a lateral position.
oncology