gms | German Medical Science

66. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC)
Friendship Meeting mit der Italienischen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (SINch)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC) e. V.

7. - 10. Juni 2015, Karlsruhe

Neurophysiological management strategies to guide low-grade glioma resection

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • Kathleen Seidel - Neurochirurgische Klinik, Inselspital, Universitätsklinik Bern
  • Jürgen Beck - Neurochirurgische Klinik, Inselspital, Universitätsklinik Bern
  • Philippe Schucht - Neurochirurgische Klinik, Inselspital, Universitätsklinik Bern
  • Andreas Raabe - Neurochirurgische Klinik, Inselspital, Universitätsklinik Bern

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie. 66. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurochirurgie (DGNC). Karlsruhe, 07.-10.06.2015. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2015. DocMI.18.01

doi: 10.3205/15dgnc389, urn:nbn:de:0183-15dgnc3891

Veröffentlicht: 2. Juni 2015

© 2015 Seidel et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Gliederung

Text

Objective: Presumed eloquence has been shown to be a modifiable risk factor in low-grade glioma (LGG) resection. Two intraoperative neurophysiological methods are accepted to guide the intraoperative decision making: mapping and monitoring. We demonstrate our neurophysiological management strategy in LGG resection focusing on motor function.

Method: 32 patients (2009 - 2014) with LGG of less than 10 mm to the corticospinal tract (CST) shown in preoperative fiber tracking were analyzed. Simultaneous direct cortical stimulation MEP monitoring (DCS-MEP) and subcortical mapping was performed applying monopolar stimulation, train of 5 stimuli, inter-stimulus-interval 4.0 ms and pulse duration 0.5 ms. From 2010 continuous dynamic mapping was realized by integrating the mapping probe at the tip of a suction device coupled with an acoustic MEP alarm.

Results: Lowest mapping thresholds (MT) were as follows (MT, number of patients): >20 mA, n= 1; 11-20 mA, n= 8; 6-10 mA, n= 6; 4-5 mA, n= 8; 1-3 mA, n= 9. DCS-MEP showed stable signals in 23 patients, unspecific changes in 8, irreversible alterations or loss in 1 patient. At 3 months, 1 patient (3 %) had a persisting postoperative motor deficit, which was caused by a vascular injury. None had a permanent motor deficit caused by a mechanical injury of the CST.

Conclusions: DCS-MEP predicts the integrity of the CST and therefore postoperative motor outcome. Only DCS-MEP is able to predict vascular injury. Mapping predicts the proximity to the CST. The continuous dynamic mapping technique improves the accuracy. This combined approach may increase the safety of motor eloquent LGG surgery.