This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Andrea Talacchi, MDa
Barbara Santini, PhDa
Francesca Casagrande, MDb
Franco Alessandrini, MDc
Giada Zoccatelli, PhDc
Giovanna M. Squintani, MDd
a Section of Neurosurgery, Department ofNeurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological andMovement Sciences, University of Verona, Italyb Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit, Department ofAnesthesiology, University Hospital, Verona, Italyc Neuroradiology Unit, Department of Radiology,University Hospital, Verona, Italyd Neurology Unit, Department of Neurosciences,University Hospital, Verona, Italy
With the advent of new anesthetic agents and the refine-ment of surgical techniques, awake surgery coupledwith cortical mapping continues to push forward thefrontiers of neurosurgery, aided by advances in imagingtechnologies, including functional magnetic resonanceimaging (fMRI), magnetoencephalography, event-relat-
Awake surgery between art and science. Part I: clinical and operative settings
ed potentials, electroencephalography (EEG), positron-emission tomography, transcranial magnetic stimulationand optical imaging (Simos et al., 1999; Rutten et al.,1999; Ruge et al., 1999; Pouration et al., 2002;Bookheimer et al., 1997; Papanicolau et al., 1999; Nariaiet al., 2005; Najib et al., 2011). New developments ininformation technology and image-guided surgery haveprompted researchers to compare non-invasive andinvasive mapping in the awake patient (Rutten et al.,2002a; Hill et al., 2000; Kamada et al., 2007). Butdespite its rapid evolution, the basic technical principlesof electrocortical mapping have remained essentially thesame since Wilder Penfield’s groundbreaking studies inthe first half of the 20th century. His technique remainsthe gold standard for language mapping (Fitzgerald etal., 1997; Pouration et al., 2004; Wiedemayer et al.,2004), wherein task disruption during cortical stimulationis taken to indicate that the underlying cortical area isessential for task performance. What has changed is theincreasing feasibility of in vivo brain mapping, which isboth safe and acceptable for the patient, and the greatervariety of selective tasks (Sielbergerd et al., 1992;Bulsara et al., 2005; Serletis and Bernstein, 2007).From the basic sciences to clinical applications, newavenues of inquiry have been opened up by translation-al research and cooperation between neuroscientistsand neurosurgeons. The connection between brainlocation and function is now viewed in the context of acomplex anatomo-functional scenario that encompass-es local cytoarchitectural variability, multimodal path-ways and dynamic compensatory mechanisms, allextending far beyond the original notion of lateralizationof brain function (Duffau et al., 2002, 2006; Duffau2005a; Faugeras et al., 2004). This perspective differssignificantly from that of the isolated pioneers ofPenfield’s time, thus precluding comparison betweenthen and now. Today’s sophisticated instruments andmultidisciplinary teams are complementary aspects ofthe same innovation that ushered in the new translation-al era (Vigneau et al., 2006; Tharin and Golby, 2007).Through closer cooperation between scientists and clini-cians, we can refine our methods of collecting databefore, during and after awake surgery, as well asimprove the criteria for selecting, defining and classify-ing parameters of interest, thereby reducing the risk ofdrawing misleading conclusions.
Objectives
This two-part article reviews the indications for intra-operative brain mapping, the role played by each spe-
cialist on the team, and the quality of the publishedevidence. It goes on to discuss how these compo-nents fit together in clinical practice.
Methods of the review
Full-text articles were retrieved independently by twoauthors and then, using a pre-established format, sub-mitted for data extraction and summary to the otherauthors according to their relative areas of expertise.In a first step, the selected articles were discussed byall the authors to create a knowledge basis and todefine a common methodology and terminology, giventhe authors’ diverse professional backgrounds. Forpractical purposes, this study was divided into twoparts. Part I focuses on: - the feasibility and efficacy of awake surgery; - anesthesia management;- electrical simulation characteristics;- clinical settings and outcome assessment.Papers were included for review only if their end-points were both intraoperative mapping and awakesurgery.In Part II of this article (Talacchi et al., 2013), devotedto language and cognitive mapping, we focus on: - the potential and limitations of intraoperative cogni-tive mapping;- the representation and reproducibility of languageand non-language functions. The studies included in this part of the review reporton cognitive end-points as measured by neurophysio-logical techniques applied to clinical research.
Rationale for the clinical review
Building on Penfield’s pioneering work, Ojemann, dur-ing the 1970s and 1980s, developed reliable conceptsfor cortical language mapping; his protocol remained amilestone for future studies (Ojemann, 1979, Ojemannet al., 1989). In awake patients, the choice of visualobject naming tasks, as suggested by Penfield’s clini-cal observations, was initially supported by findingsthat anomia is the most sensitive clinical deficit (Saettiet al., 1999). This was later confirmed by intraopera-tive (Haglund et al., 1994) and clinical studies inepilepsy and tumor surgery (Haglund et al., 1994;Ojemann and Dodrill, 1985; Sanai et al., 2008). While the initial assumption was that no electricallyidentified areas should be removed if postsurgical lan-guage complications were to be avoided, it was laterincreasingly assumed that postsurgical languagedeficits would not occur following resection of the cor-tical areas that did not generate language deficits afterelectrical stimulation (Sanai et al., 2008). This indirectmessage is gaining acceptance, although most stud-ies lack comprehensive pre- and postoperative clinicalassessment and objective determination of cognitivecomplications. Moreover, the original assumption that resection of anessential language area will result in postoperative
aphasia has not been definitively confirmed to date(Peraud et al., 2004; Seeck et al., 2006), nor has theassumption that sparing positive sites for a namingtask will necessarily preserve other language functions(Whittle et al., 2003, 2005; Petrovich Brennan et al.,2007; Hamberger et al., 2005). As we continue to movefrom an intraoperative naming-assisted surgical resec-tion to other language and cognitive tasks and fromcortical to subcortical stimulation, the need hasemerged for a critical appraisal of current methods,classification schemes and definitions.The aims of tumor surgery and epilepsy surgery differ:minimizing neurological sequelae is only one aspectof treatment that can be tailored to the features of alesion, as documented by clinical and instrumentalstudies. What essentially distinguishes cancer fromepilepsy are the presenting symptoms and impair-ment. Improvement of preoperative clinical impair-ment and radical tumor resection are the end-points oftumor surgery, while improvement of preoperative per-formance is the end-point of epilepsy treatment(Buckner et al., 2001; Hamberger, 2007).In glioma surgery, for example, increased indicationsfor tumor removal, a higher rate of radical tumorresection, and a lower rate of postoperative impair-ments have all been recognized (Duffau, 2005b), butthere is a need for better quality evidence confirmingthe clinical advantages.Furthermore, while cortical mapping was originallyapplied to epilepsy surgery where resection is limitedto the cortex, its indications were later extended totumor surgery involving the white matter. With theadvent of subcortical neurofunctional imaging tech-niques, the question as to whether and how these dif-ferences imply different clinical and operative settingshas recently been raised. There are mixed situationsbetween extremes. Low-grade gliomas benefit mostfrom awake surgery. They pose a considerable chal-lenge in that they share characteristics of both epilep-sy and tumors, with a long history that could influenceneurofunctional anatomy in patients with a normalneurological examination (Duffau et al., 2005b; Duffau2005b, 2006a,b, 2007). In this review, we will focus onbrain tumor surgery in different clinical situations.
Feasibility and efficacy of awake surgery
Awake surgery procedures pose a series of chal-lenges, namely the need for: integration of differenttypes of knowledge; coordination of a multidisciplinaryteam of specialists; cooperation in different settings(operating room, ward, outpatient clinic); applicationof surgical and research protocols; and technicaladjustments to make research comparable. The requi-sites for awake surgery vary and it therefore includesa great variety of resources selected case-by-case: itranges from a minimalistic approach that reduces hos-pitalization and discomfort for the patient, with or with-out cognitive mapping, to a more complex multidisci-plinary approach involving specialists in neurophysiol-ogy, cognition and rehabilitation (Ebel et al., 2000;
Blanshard et al., 2001). The feasibility of awake sur-gery has been studied in comparison with generalanesthesia, albeit without an economic or time-costanalysis of treatment.Absolute contraindications to anesthesia in awakesurgery are obstructive sleep apnea and difficult intu-bation (Picht et al., 2006). Duration of surgery: Gupta et al. (2007) reported ashorter mean operating time in the general anesthesiagroup than in the awake surgery group (182 vs 196min; p<0.05), as did Keifer et al. (2005) and Taylor andBernstein (1999) (195 and 209 min, respectively).Bello et al. (2007) reported much longer operatingtimes (mean: 345 min, longest: 405 min, and meanawake time; 105 min). Whittle et al. (2005) reported amean awake time of 62 min (range: 10-105 min).Intraoperative medical complications are classifiedas: anesthetic (inadequate or excessive sedation,pain, nausea, vomiting); respiratory (oxygen satura-tion [SpO2] <90%, increased CO2, hypoventilation <8breaths/min, airway obstruction); hemodynamic
(hyper- or hypotension, tachy- or bradycardia); andneurological (convulsions, brain swelling, new neuro-logical deficit) (Sarang and Dinsmore, 2003; Keifer etal., 2005). Skucas and Artru (2006) focused on med-ical complications, including airway problems, hypox-emia, hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, brady-cardia, hypercapnia, seizures, nausea, poor patientcooperation, brain swelling and local anesthetic toxic-ity. In their review of the literature, they found thathyper- and hypotension are frequent in awake surgery(11 and 56%, respectively). In their study involving332 patients, they observed that airway problems areinfrequent: only 2% of patients developed hypoxemia(SpO2 <90%) and only 1.8% required intubation orplacement of a respiratory device. Respiratory prob-lems occurred more frequently in obese patients andthose with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease. Interestingly, whereas they noted thatintractable seizures occurred in only 3% of patients,rates of up to 16% were reported by other authors(Serletis and Bernstein, 2007; Taylor and Bernstein,1999; Bello et al., 2007; Petrovich Brennan et al.,2007). The use of propofol to reduce intraoperativeseizures has been recommended (Gignac et al., 1993;Herrick et al., 1997; Danks et al., 1998, Huncke et al.,1998; Berkenstadt et al., 2001; Sarang and Dinsmore,2003). Patient agitation and lack of compliance werereported among the exclusion criteria.Blood loss: Gupta et al. (2007) observed that there isless blood loss in awake surgery than in general anes-thesia (266 vs 365 ml; p<0.05). Local postoperative complications: Taylor andBernstein (1999) found a 2.5% rate of wound compli-cations and postoperative hematoma, similar to thatreported in a large 1995 study on 1427 elective supra-tentorial craniotomies.Complaints of discomfort include minor distur-bances in 25% (Otani et al., 2005) and 28% of cases(Danks et al., 1998), anxiety in 29% (Whittle et al.,2003), fear in 15% (Whittle et al., 2005), fatigue in
40% (Bello et al., 2007), and significant discomfort in20% (Danks et al., 1998). Mean postoperative hospital stay and intensive
care unit (ICU) admission were not found to be sig-nificant factors (Gupta et al., 2007). Awake craniotomywas associated with low morbidity and mortality andreduced the need for ICU admission and total hospitalstay. It minimized invasive intraoperative monitoring,lowering the incidence of infectious complications.There is evidence that appropriate monitoring canhelp in the prevention and treatment of secondarydamage during and after a neurosurgical procedureand that, because it measures the exact level of seda-tion without risk, monitoring can offer greater safetyand comfort (Taylor and Bernstein, 1999; Serletis andBernstein, 2007; Blanshard et al., 2001).Patient age: there is general consensus that patientsmust be older than 11 years of age (Berger et al., 1989). Establishing local anesthesia as a valid alternative togeneral anesthesia could eventually extend the indi-cations of cognitive mapping and research, regardlessof location and clinical presentation. The efficacy of awake surgery has been comparedwith an alternative treatment modality using implantedgrid electrodes, a two-stage in vivo mapping proce-dure done prior to resection. Early and recent reportsdescribed no additional complications due to secondcraniotomy and highlighted the advantages of havinga comprehensive assessment of multiple cognitivetasks and epileptic activity in order to accuratelydefine their topographical relationships. Referral cen-ters for epilepsy surgery (Kral et al., 2006) continue toapply this well-known methodology (two-stage proce-dure). The disadvantages are the imprecision of corti-cal mapping and the need for a second operation(Duffau et al., 2003, 2005a; Duffau 2007). fMRI alonehas been shown to be inadequate for predictingessential language sites (Giussani et al., 2011).
Preoperative evaluation
Multimodal imaging
In neurosurgery, fMRI is generally used to assess therisk of postoperative functional deficits and to identifybrain regions involved in various functions (i.e., sen-sorimotor, tactile, language, vision and hearing), espe-cially in lesions located in close proximity to the elo-quent cortex (Haberg et al., 2004; Petrella et al.,2006). Sunaert (2006) identified three main goals ofpresurgical fMRI: 1) to estimate the risk of eventualneurological deficits by measuring the distancebetween the margin of planned tumor resection andeloquent/essential functional areas (Haberg et al.,2004); 2) to select patients for intraoperative corticalstimulation (Petrella et al., 2006); 3) to provide guid-ance for functional neuronavigation based on preoper-atively acquired structural information (Rasmussen etal., 2007). Functional data can be obtained from high-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) morphological
images acquired during the same session, enhancingthe possibility of identifying functional foci within spe-cific anatomical structures. The most common appli-cations of presurgical fMRI are sensorimotor and lan-guage mapping (Sunaert 2006; Stippich et al., 2007).The fMRI signal of motor paradigms is robust and thetasks are feasible and easily repeated. Much morecomplex is the mapping of cortical eloquent areas, asthe function itself implies higher cortical involvement.The diagnostic objectives include mapping of thespeech centers (Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas) anddetermination of the speech dominant hemisphere.fMRI targets defined areas activated by specific stim-uli, making the choice of tasks very important. Thedrawback is the lack of general agreement within thescientific community on standardization of taskdesign, i.e., which is the best task or how many tasksshould be used during an MR procedure, especiallywhen evaluating higher cognitive functions. Overallsensitivity and specificity of fMRI in cerebral lesions is83% and 82%, respectively, while the sensitivity andspecificity of fMRI are 88% and 87%, respectively, forhand motor function alone, and 80% and 78%, respec-tively, for language (Bizzi et al., 2008). The lower rateof patient sensitivity for language as compared to sen-sorimotor areas presumably reflects tumor-relatedreceptive and expressive aphasias, as well as relatedcognitive loss or mechanisms of compensation.Sensitivity (65%) was lower and specificity (93%)higher in WHO grade IV as compared to grade II (sen-sitivity, 93%; specificity, 79%) and III (sensitivity, 93%;specificity, 76%) gliomas (Bizzi et al., 2008). In presur-gical planning, functional evaluation of verbal capaci-ties is especially useful for determining hemisphericdominance because of the good correlation betweenfMRI and the Wada test (Binder et al., 1996; Knecht etal., 2000). Even though the amobarbital test is still theclinical gold standard for the assessment of languagedominance, this technique is disputed on methodolog-ical and practical grounds. On the other hand, calcula-tion of the lateralization index with fMRI is a means ofdefining, safely and non-invasively, the localization ofthe functional areas related to the tumor. Most studieshave calculated a lateralization index to quantify theproportion of activation in both hemispheres (Rutten etal., 2002b); the lateralization index varies, rangingfrom −100 (all activation in the right hemisphere) to100 (all activation in the left hemisphere). A cutoffvalue of the index is then chosen to determinewhether patients have typical or atypical languagedominance. Unfortunately, there is no consensus onan optimal fMRI protocol or cutoff values for the later-alization index due to the variability in the indexesreported across fMRI studies (Gaillard et al., 2004;Kamada et al., 2006). Nor is there complete agree-ment between fMRI protocols and the Wada test todate. Therefore, combining multiple fMRI languagetasks is currently the best strategy and yields repro-ducible and reliable results (Rutten et al., 2002b).When atypical language dominance is suspected,activation maps should be inspected for possible
mixed dominance, as frontal and temporoparietalareas can be located in different hemispheres(Kamada et al., 2006). Further advantages may beobtained by integrating fMRI with other imagingmodalities such as diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) andmagnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) (Fig.s1A,B). DTI and fiber tractography are two MR tech-niques based on the concept of anisotropic water dif-fusion in myelinated fibers that allow three-dimension-al reconstruction and visualization of white-mattertracts. Tractography potentially solves the problem ofdetermining the extent to which infiltration of abnormaltissue can help the surgeon to minimize residualtumor volume, i.e., it facilitates preoperative planningby showing whether a tumor is compressing, abutting,or infiltrating the contiguous white-matter tracts (Lu etal., 2004; Bello et al., 2008, 2010; Bizzi et al., 2012).The power of this information in many clinical situa-tions is such that 3D maps are already routinely beingintegrated with neurosurgical navigation systems. Thetechnique is also attracting interest as a useful tool forpostoperative follow-up (Coenen et al., 2001; Field etal., 2004; Mori et al., 2002; Clark et al., 2003). DTIprovides information about the integrity, displacementand/or interruption of white-matter tracts in andaround a tumor due to edema or tumor infiltration(Clark et al., 2003; Lu et al., 2003; Yamada et al.,2003). However, the heterogeneity of brain tumors inthe context of complex environments (e.g., edema,mass effects) and the inherent heterogeneity of diffu-sion anisotropy in normal white matter reduce theoverall specificity of DTI measures. Yet although itmay be difficult to separate edematous from infiltratedtracts, DTI-based tractography is fairly reliable fordetermining whether the mass is displacing or inter-rupting a tract. False-negative results can be found inregions with T2-signal hyperintensity and elevated dif-fusivity (Young and Knopp, 2006). In presurgical sen-sorimotor planning, standardization is highest for thecorticospinal and thalamocortical tracts, whereas inlanguage mapping the superior longitudinal fascicu-lus, the arcuate fasciculus, and the inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus are the white-matter bundles thatmore often need to be validated with intraoperativeelectrical stimulation. New acquisition schemes andmore sophisticated software models are being devel-oped to extract finer anatomical information from eachvoxel. Although attractive in its simplicity, the diffusiontensor model has been shown to be inadequate in themany brain regions that contain so-called “crossingfibers” (Frank, 2001; Tuch, 2004; Wedeen et al.,2005), i.e. co-localization of two or more differently ori-ented fiber bundles within the same voxel. The term“crossing fibers” is itself somewhat misleading, as itincludes any situation where multiple fiber orientationscontribute to the signal measured for the same imag-ing voxel. This applies to configurations that may notinitially have been thought of as “crossing fibers”, e.g.fiber bundles that “brush” past each other within thesame imaging voxel, or even curving or “fanning”fibers. Crossing fibers are endemic to diffusion-
weighted imaging (DWI), due to its coarse resolution(2 to 3 mm) as compared to the white-matter struc-tures of interest [even the pyramidal tracts are only 3mm thick in subcortical regions (Ebeling and Reulen,1992)]. Indeed, recent studies have shown that a sig-nificant proportion of the white matter contains cross-ing fibers, with the most recent estimating that multi-ple fiber orientations can be detected in over 90% ofwhite-matter voxels (Behrens et al., 2007). Theseeffects have an obvious impact on the diffusion tensorand any measures derived from it. These are the rea-sons for the growing interest in using higher-ordermodels to capture more fully the information that DWIcan provide. Several new DTI algorithms currentlybeing tested and implemented in clinical settings mayreveal the very intricate interactions betweenmicrostructure and signal and the sheer complexity ofthe white matter itself. DTI still provides a unique andnon-invasive means of probing tissue microstructure
in vivo and is by far the most promising tool for study-ing white matter and its organization in living humans.When combined with functional brain mapping, DTIprovides an efficient tool for comprehensive, non-inva-sive, functional anatomy mapping of the human brain(Bello et al., 2008). In glioma surgery, the approach todiffuse subcortical gliomas and the decision to resectthe infiltrated brain tissue surrounding the tumor coreare the cornerstones of the modern aggressive surgi-cal strategy. This is the rationale for obtaining knowl-edge of brain functions at the tumor margin in individ-ual cases. MRS and DTI have been advocated aspromising tools for delineating the extent of tumor infil-tration (Price et al., 2003; Stadlbauer et al., 2004,2006). High-resolution spectroscopic imaging can aidin pretreatment grading and characterization of intra-axial lesions, especially when routine MR sequencesdo not provide accurate differential diagnosis (Sibtainet al., 2007; Galanaud et al., 2006) (Fig.1A).
Clinical and operative settings in awake surgery
Functional Neurology 2013; 28(3): 205-221 209
Figure 1A – Infiltrative tumor of the left insula. Integrated neuroimaging.The lesion, which exhibits a hyperintense signal on T2 (a) and FLAIR (b) images, shows no enhancement after Gd-DTPA administra-tion (d). The DWI pattern (c) is slightly hetereogenous, with medium-low apparent diffusion coefficient values (trend towards high cel-lularity). 2D CSI MR spectroscopy (e, long TE sequence; f, short TE sequence) shows marked choline elevation, NAA reduction, mildincrease in myo-inositol and creatine, evidence of lipids, data consistent with proliferative lesion. Histology: mixed oligo-astrocytoma(WHO grade II-III).
Together with structural and functional imaging, thepresenting symptoms and physical examination alsohelp to guide the surgical strategy. Disturbances inlanguage-related functions, whether transient or pro-gressive, functional or organic, predispose to higheroperative risk than location itself (Peraud et al., 2004;Benzagmout et al., 2007). The standard assessmentsfor dominance are the Edinburgh HandednessInventory, Wada test and/or fMRI with a verb genera-tion task (Duffau et al., 2003).The second step in patient assessment is neurologicalexamination to reveal disturbances in speech andcognition. However, neurological examination doesnot yield reliable or sufficient information about thetype of dysphasia or for specific classification of mildimpairments. This is an important issue since 26 to55% of patients with mild-to-moderate deficits under-go awake surgery for mapping (Bello et al., 2007;Sanai et al., 2008; Skirboll et al., 1996).While there is general consensus that mappingrequires that patients have no significant disorderwhich would affect their performance of the task dur-
ing the operation, some authors give a clearer mean-ing to preoperative assessment, showing that sensi-tive tasks can maximize testing efficiency. They statethat clinical syndromes and standardized batterieshave failed to characterize subtle deficits and/orselective deficits and that task sensitivity can beenhanced through the choice of appropriate individu-alized tasks (Petrovich Brennan et al., 2007; Bello etal., 2007; Whittle et al., 2003). The clinical objective isto recognize preserved functions or subprocesses inorder to preserve them intraoperatively (PetrovichBrennan et al., 2007; Pouratian et al., 2003). Thisresearch can be pursued with a group of cognitionexperts who can support operative planning by admin-istering personalized tests and tasks in a givenpatient. Ultimately, preoperative clinical assessmentserves 1) to detect subtle impairment, 2) to assesspostoperative results, 3) to guide intraoperative map-ping, and 4) to determine eligibility for awake surgery.
LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT
Generally, pre-operative evaluation is limited to thenaming task (Ojemann et al., 1989; Haglund et al.,
A. Talacchi et al.
210 Functional Neurology 2013; 28(3): 205-221
Figure 1B – Same case. Functional connectivity: fMRI (a, b) and MR diffusion tractography (c, d).Left arcuate fasciculus reconstruction using fMRI clusters of activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as seeding points, evokedduring a word generation task and overlaid on T2-weighted images (a, axial view; b, sagittal view). Fibers of the left arcuate fascicu-lus (in red) overlaid on axial (c) and sagittal (d) T2-weighted images, although strictly adjacent to the posterior margin of the lesion,are dislocated but not infiltrated by the tumor.
1994; Hamberger et al., 2005) (see Part II). Furtherassessment of specific functions investigates: sponta-neous speech, language fluency, object naming, writ-ten/oral comprehension, reading, dictation, and repe-tition (these assessments constitutite the baseline bat-tery for French authors). Additional tests include: writ-ing sentences and words (Sanai et al., 2008); oralcontrolled association by phonetic cue and semanticcue; famous face naming; action picture naming; andtranscoding tasks (Bello et al., 2007). However, there is a clear discrepancy between theavailability of sophisticated tests and the lack ofdetailed quantification of test results. Some studiesanalyzed only submaximal scores (Benzagmout et al.,2007), some recorded a simple yes or no answer(Peraud et al., 2004; Duffau et al., 2003; Signorelli etal., 2001), while others authors classified only severedeficits (Sanai et al., 2008); none differentiated selec-tive scoring according to individual patients or groupsof patients. The original test battery was rarely report-ed, and when cited it was the Token test, AachenerAphasie Test or Boston Diagnostic AphasiaExamination (Peraud et al., 2004; Bello et al., 2007;Petrovich Brennan et al., 2007). In addition, preoperative evaluation may not matchpostoperative evaluation, with a predictable loss ofinformation useful for prognosis and interpretation ofclinical results. The consistent use of test batterieswould allow investigation of language functions,parameters of interest, test quality and criteria todefine abnormality. In some studies, detailed testswere performed only preoperatively (Gupta et al.,2007; Lubrano et al., 2004; Roux et al., 2003; Bello etal., 2007) or only postoperatively (Picht et al., 2006;Haglund et al., 1994; Pouratian et al., 2003) andimpairments were variably categorized. It is still controversial whether preoperative impairmentis a positive or negative prognostic factor. In a group ofpatients with similar pre- and intraoperative findings,Duffau et al. (2003), according to the postoperativecourse, distinguished between patients with tumor-infiltrating brain areas and patients with tumor-com-pressing brain areas, since postoperative deteriorationwas thought to occur in severely infiltrated brains. Aworse outcome in patients with severe premorbid con-ditions is a common observation (Whittle et al., 2003;Bello et al., 2007; Gupta et al. 2007). In contrast,Haglund et al. (1994) found a higher rate of improve-ment than of worsening (67 vs 22%) in impairedpatients. Postoperative deterioration remains a chal-lenge for the team, because inadequate mapping maybe the result of the quality or type of the intraoperativetask or of the neurophysiological parameters selected.
MULTILINGUAL PATIENTS
A subject is usually defined as multilingual when he orshe uses more than two languages or dialects in hiseveryday life (Fabbro, 2001; Kim et al., 1997).Subjects can be categorized as early multilingual(when the second or third language is acquired duringchildhood) or late multilingual (when other languages
Clinical and operative settings in awake surgery
Functional Neurology 2013; 28(3): 205-221 211
are learned in adulthood) (Kim et al., 1997).Depending on the level of fluency, subjects can be fur-ther subdivided in classes of low or high proficiency(Fabbro, 2001; Kim et al., 1997).A standardized or complete examination in the preop-erative phase is infrequently described, but in all stud-ies the patients were evaluated for their naming abili-ty in each language in which they were proficient. Insome studies, other tests were carried out as well. Therecommendation is that, during a brain mapping pro-cedure, neurosurgeons studying language organiza-tion with electrostimulation in bilinguals/multilingualstest all languages in which the subjects are fluent(Ojemann et al., 1979b; Roux and Trémoulet, 2002;Roux et al., 2004; Lucas et al., 2004; Walker et al.,2004; Bello et al., 2006).
COGNITION AND qUALITY OF LIFE
When surgery for intractable epilepsy is performed onthe basis only of thorough assessment by a team ofprofessionals (neuropsychologist, speech therapist,neurologist) who are not ordinarily part of a neurosur-gical team, it is necessary to consult the neuropsy-chologist in order to ascertain which function, besideslanguage, is served by a brain region that may be sur-gically removed. Yet, the neuropsychologist’s role isseldom defined in relation to brain tumor treatment. Tumors in the dominant hemisphere may profoundlyaffect cognitive function well beyond language func-tion. Although some deficits are related to tumor site,typically in low-grade glioma patients, a wider spec-trum of deficits, often not limited to a single cognitivedomain, is encountered in high-grade glioma (Tuchaet al., 2000; Yoshi et al., 2008). This makes theassessment battery crucial for global evaluation andlongitudinal study (Table I) (Talacchi et al., 2011).Scant attention has been paid to the impact that pri-mary brain tumors can have on quality of life(Taphoorn et al., 1992, 2005; Giovagnoli and Boiardi,1994; Weitzner et al., 1996; Weitzner and Meyers,1997; Buckner et al., 2001). Contrary to what is seenin other cancer patients when the burden of the dis-ease is assessed, in brain tumor patients a decreasein cognitive and emotional functioning may result fromcerebral disease. Subclinical symptoms, personalitychanges, and mood disturbances may prove to be asburdensome to patients, or more so, than certain focalneurological deficits (Giovagnoli et al., 2005). Asthese often go unrecognized on self-assessment, it isnecessary to seek the expert opinion of specialistswith neuropsychological experience (Påhlson et al.,2003; Taphoorn and Klein, 2004).
Inclusion criteria
PATHOLOGY
The proximity of critical pathways can pose a signifi-cant challenge to standard operative strategies. Theconcept of the eloquent area is evolving and may
potentially be extended to all measurable functions.Possible causes of brain damage include: the trajecto-ry in subcortical tumors; abnormal anatomy in recur-rent tumors; distorted anatomy due to the tumor; low-grade glioma; irregular tumors; the periphery in high-grade glioma; the gliotic rim in cavernous angioma;epilepsy and temporary arterial occlusion (Matsuda etal., 2012). Not all these categories are mentioned inthe literature when the tumor is characterized.Nevertheless, they are all known to be crucial factorsin surgical outcome, and knowledge of the eloquentcortex may help the surgeon to avoid clinical conse-quences.The aims of the surgical strategy, particularly in sur-gery for glioma, may be linked to orientation (trajecto-ry, abnormal anatomy, distorted anatomy), which isnot usually histology-dependent, and removal (lowgrade, irregular margins, periphery). However,whether different surgical strategies require differenttypes of assessment and intraoperative mappingstrategies is far from established.
Exclusion criteria
ELIGIBILITY
Studies in patients undergoing awake craniotomyhave reported that the primary cause of anxiety is thefear of pain (Santini et al., 2012). Although awakecraniotomy is generally considered to be well tolerat-ed, complications such as emotional distress and agi-tation are reported and lead to loss of control, theneed for more sedation, and failure of the mappingproject. Once the patient has been given a detaileddescription of the procedure and provided his fullyinformed consent, the decision to operate will dependon whether he can be reasonably expected to becooperative. Failure rates due to agitation vary from 2to 8%, but are not systematically reported (Sahjpaul,2000).
LANGUAGE ABILITY
Since the aim of awake language mapping is to pre-serve speech, preoperative normal function is the ref-
erence parameter. Detailed preoperative languageexaminations address this issue. Because criteria andcut-off values for surgical inclusion are rarely given,the role of a detailed evaluation in symptomaticpatients is often unclear. Some authors stated thatpatients are excluded if the preoperative error rate is>25%, due to the subsequent difficulty of decidingwhether an intraoperative error was evoked or not(Signorelli et al., 2001; Little and Friedman, 2004).Haglund et al. (1994), without conducting preoperativeassessment, excluded from their study patients whohad an intraoperative error rate >25% without stimula-tion interference (see Part II).In tumor series, the proportion of eligible patients withmild-moderate deficits is quite high (26-55%) (Bello etal., 2007; Sanai et al., 2008; Skirboll et al., 1996),while the proportion of excluded patients varies con-siderably (5-30%) (Sanai et al., 2008; Pouratian et al.,2003; Bello et al., 2007) and is rarely reported. Rouxet al. (2003) and Lubrano et al. (2004) excluded fromsurgical procedures all cases with a Boston Namingscore <90%, but they were alone in using a high cut-off to define the functional criterion for exclusion.
Operative setting
Anesthesia management
Procedures that identify and map specific brain areasare becoming increasingly complex. The anesthesiol-ogist is responsible for inducing states of analgesiathat do not interfere with patient comfort or electro-physiological monitoring, while still ensuring car-diorespiratory stability. During surgical proceduresinvolving Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, verbal con-tact is essential and should be maintained. A goodanesthetic technique entails analgesia, anesthesia orsedation and respiratory and hemodynamic controlwithout interfering with electrocorticographic and neu-ropsychological testing (Frost and Booij, 2007), butthere is no general consensus on the best anesthesiaapproach. Current techniques include continuous sedation(Sarang and Dinsmore, 2003) with fast-acting agentsand local anesthesia of the scalp. Airway management
A. Talacchi et al.
212 Functional Neurology 2013; 28(3): 205-221
Table I - Classification of patient alertness during the operation (modified from Chernik et al.,1990).
remains a concern due to the risk of aspiration oroversedation (SpO2 <90%) because patients continueto breathe spontaneously. Propofol, fentanyl, remifen-tanyl and midazolam are commonly used. Propofolcan affect EEG monitoring (Herrick et al., 1997), butintravenous drugs are, nevertheless, preferable sincethe ideal anesthetic for neurosurgery (rapid onset,easily controllable duration of action, no effect on thecardiovascular or respiratory system, no nausea orvomiting and no interference with neurological andneurophysiological evaluation) does not yet exist. Thelevel of sedation is fundamental, since oversedationresults in an uncooperative patient and respiratorydepression, while undersedation makes the patientuncomfortable.
LOCAL ANESTHESIA
During sedation, blockage of the auricolotemporal,zygomaticotemporal, supraorbital, supratrochlear,lesser occipital and greater occipital nerves is manda-tory to allow painless skin incision. Among the long-acting agents, ropivacaine and levobupivacaine seempreferable owing to their safe action on the heart.Costello et al. (2005) reported safe dosages of up to4.5 mg/kg for ropivacaine and up to 2.5 mg/kg for lev-obupivacaine.
ANESTHETICS
• Propofol has a rapid onset of action and is quicklyremoved from the bloodstream by redistribution andmetabolism; this means that the level of anesthesia orsedation can change rapidly. Nevertheless, propofolcan lead to respiratory depression. It should also benoted that propofol interacts with gamma-aminobu-tyric acid receptors, leading, at low dosages, to centralnervous system hyperactivity with movements mim-icking tonic-clonic seizures. Propofol also has a neu-roprotective action, probably mediated by its antioxi-dant properties which may play a role in apoptosis,ischemia-reperfusion injury, and inflammation-inducedneuronal injury.• Narcotics: remifentanyl seems to be the most appro-priate narcotic during awake surgery because of itsrapid onset, rapid half-life and lack of accumulationeven after prolonged infusion. Remifentanyl can leadto muscle rigidity, postoperative shivering, a low risk ofpostoperative agitation and seizures (Grønlykke et al.,2008), and bradycardia. In conclusion, various different anesthesia protocolsand drugs can be used in intraoperative mapping, butthe two basic factors for obtaining an optimal resultare good patient selection and good communicationbetween the awake surgery team members.
Surgical procedure and strategy
Intraoperative mapping (electrical stimulation, cogni-tive tasks, and response) is described in Part II of this
article. Here we discuss the choice of tasks in preop-erative assessment, operative tools and strategy, inshort, how these are used in a clinical situation.The intraoperative microscope and the ultrasonicaspirator are elements essential to an accurate surgi-cal technique. Patient positioning is dictated by thecraniotomy site. But because patient comfort isanother important factor, the patient is positionedwhile awake. Temporo-occipital and temporoparietalcraniotomy are quite posterior, but the patient can bepositioned more comfortably lying on his side andsupported by a soft pillow and mattress. The patientis positioned so that he is accessible to the anesthe-siologist and neuropsychologist or speech therapist,and can receive and respond to commands duringcognitive testing.Initially, wide craniotomy was performed to exposethe classical areas and to confirm the negative sitessurrounding the lesion by mapping the positive areas(Ojemann et al., 1989). With increasing reliance onmapping, craniotomy has been gradually reduced tothe size needed to approach the lesion (Sanai et al.,2008). Precise intraoperative description of mapping sitesleads to greater accuracy in describing results. Withimage-assisted surgery, probabilistic location (Sanaiet al., 2008) can be replaced by exact location(Reithmeier et al., 2003). The neuronavigator can sup-port different aims. It can define the cortical edges oflesions, particularly in low-grade gliomas which aredifficult to differentiate from normal cortex(Benzagmout et al., 2007), and it can establish the siteof corticectomy and the trajectory in the approach tosubcortical lesions.Before removing tumor or tumor-infiltrated brain tis-sue, it should be remembered that neurological func-tions can also be found in the same areas: at thetumor edge in high-grade glioma and within the tumorin low-grade glioma (Ojemann et al., 1996; Bello et al.,2006). In structural and functional mapping, determi-nation of the tumor periphery in an extraoperative set-ting with MRS and MRI is increasingly being supple-mented by its use in an intraoperative setting. Whileultrasound is the instrument of choice after brain shift-ing, intraoperative MRI has great appeal for structuraldefinition as well as for functional information, validat-ing connectivity as determined on preoperative DTI(D’Andrea et al., 2012). Optical spectroscopic imag-ing, optical coherence tomography, and 5-amino-lev-ulinic acid fluorescence are innovative intraoperativetechniques that detect the tumor periphery when visu-al inspection is not sufficient to distinguish normalfrom infiltrated brain tissue (Sobottka et al., 2008;Stummer et al., 2008; Giese et al., 2008). When these procedures are combined, the surgicalstrategy clearly becomes critically important. In thisregard, some authors reported that the real advantageof mapping, with or without resection-enhancing intra-operative techniques, is the extent of the tumor resec-tion (Schucht et al., 2012; Talacchi et al., 2010; DeBenedictis et al., 2010; Ius et al., 2012).
Duffau proposed an alternative strategy to tumor“visual monitoring”: “All resections were pursued untileloquent subcortical pathways were encounteredaround the surgical cavity. Thus, there was no marginleft around the cortico-subcortical eloquent areas.”(Duffau, 2005a). However, there are not enough datato validate this strategy to date, and it should bereconsidered only after feasibility, reproducibility andsafety studies have been performed in clinical settings(bottom-up processing of evidence). One major limitation in clinical comparative inference isthat multiple cortical or subcortical sites are manipulat-ed during an operation, making it impossible to relatean event to the manipulation of a specific site. In otherwords, improvement in surgical strategy is driven bynumerous methodological issues. Taken together,choices regarding patient positioning, surgical tech-nique, tumor definition, comparison between clinicaland intraoperative information, functional studies, andintraoperative tools will lead to a good result. By con-trast, considering only one or few functional variablesmay be confounding and misleading in decision mak-ing, or even disappointing when looking at a studydesign that links aims, methods and results. This is whyresearch studies today should be validated in a clinicalsetting, taking into account surgical complications,which are critical to expand our current knowledge(Sawaya et al., 1998). This, in turn, is why the challengeof awake surgery and cognitive mapping ultimatelyresides in the medical team’s ability to pursue clinicalobjectives by uniting their professional knowledge.
Electrical stimulation
ELECTRICAL PARAMETERS AND NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
At first sight, the principles of cortical stimulation for lan-guage mapping appear to be well established, with theclassical 50-60 Hz (high frequency) bipolar Penfieldtechnique the one generally employed for historical rea-sons. However, detailed analysis reveals inconsisten-cies between cortical stimulation protocols (Pouratian etal., 2004). Because electrophysiological parametersaffect the results of stimulation, localization of functionvaries across studies depending on which stimulationparameters and mapping strategies are chosen. Electrophysiological stimulation of the cortex relies onseveral different neurophysiological parameterswhich, in turn, can influence the final effect of map-ping. The use of monopolar or bipolar stimulation isone of these variables. The vast majority of authorsuse bipolar stimulation with either a probe or two adja-cent electrodes attached to a strip or grid. The inter-electrode distance is usually 5-10 mm and the elec-trode diameter varies up to four-fold (1 to 4 mm),which – when other parameters are kept constant –can influence the charge density applied to the cortex. Bipolar stimulation is thought to produce a higher,more focal current density than monopolar stimulationand to facilitate the excitation of neural cells parallel to
the bipolar axis (Nathan et al., 1993; Haglund et al.,1994; Schekutiev and Schmid, 1996; Manola et al.,2007). However, the actual dispersion of current inbipolar cortical stimulation and the related risk of acti-vating distant cortical sites have never been systemat-ically studied, and the lack of selectivity, particularly athigher intensities, may be a real drawback. Whilemonopolar and bipolar cortical stimulation have simi-lar sensitivity for mapping the motor cortex, bipolarstimulation is the only technique currently available forintraoperative mapping and monitoring of the speech-related cortex (Kombos and Süss, 2009).Although high-frequency stimulation (50-60 Hz) of elo-quent areas is the most widespread technique, thereis some evidence that low-frequency stimulation mayalso be effective: lowering the stimulation frequencydecreases the probability of inducing afterdischargeswithout significantly compromising mapping efficacy(Chen et al., 1997; Zangaladze et al., 2008; Hoshinoet al., 2005). These preliminary observations warrantfurther investigation in the intra-operative setting;nonetheless, it would be advisable to start corticalmapping at a lower frequency first. The short-train technique (5-7 stimuli, 0.5 ms duration,ISI 4.1 ms = 250 Hz, at a train repetition rate of 1 or 2Hz) is recommended for mapping the motor cortexand subcortical motor pathways; however, it cannot beused for language and cognitive mapping because thetrain duration is too short (about 20 ms) to significant-ly inhibit the cognitive function being tested.Furthermore, it is unclear to what extent other param-eters such as polarity (monophasic, alternating orbiphasic square wave pulses), duration of single stim-uli (0.2-1 ms), and train stimulation (1-8 sec) can influ-ence the mapping of eloquent areas. Mapping strategies are among the other main vari-ables that may affect the results of stimulation. Twodifferent theories subtend the choice of strategy.Some authors apply the concept that thresholds (theminimum stimulation current needed to induce func-tional changes) vary across the exposed cortexdepending on the task being assessed and the loca-tion being mapped. This is in keeping with the obser-vation that afterdischarge thresholds can vary signifi-cantly not only across a population but also at differ-ent cortical sites in the same subject (Lesser et al.,1984; Pouratian et al., 2004). Accordingly, maximizingthe stimulation currents at each cortical site isattempted to ensure the absence of eloquent function(Woolsey et al., 1979; Lesser et al., 1984; Pouratian etal., 2002 a,b). But in so doing, aftercharge thresholdsin the adjacent cortices are often exceeded, increas-ing the risk of distal activation due to current spread-ing to adjacent sites.Other authors (Van Buren et al., 1978; Berger et al.,1989; Ojemann et al., 1989) keep stimulation intensi-ty constant while mapping the entire cortex and setthe threshold just below the lowest current observedto induce afterdischarges. With this strategy, the riskof inducing afterdischarges (which may invalidate theresults) and clinical seizures is minimized but elo-quent cortical sites may not be identified.
The occurrence of intraoperative seizures induced bycortical stimulation using the 60-Hz technique isreported in up to 24-27% of cases (Sartorius andWright, 1997; Burke et al., 1999); whether this risk ishigher in patients with symptomatic epilepsy than inthose with asymptomatic epilepsy remains debated(Szelenyi et al., 2010). Most such seizures can becontrolled by irrigating the cortex with cold Ringer’ssolution (Sartorius and Berger, 1998), potentially obvi-ating the need to administer antiepileptic drugs whichcould increase thresholds in electrical mapping.Overall, seizure occurrence may affect the mappingstrategy and reduce mapping reliability to someextent. Electrocorticography (EcoG) with a 4-8 elec-trode strip placed on the exposed cortex adjacent tothe stimulated regions helps to continuously monitorthe patient for epileptic seizures and afterdischargeactivity (spikes or sharp waves within 5 seconds ofstimulus termination) so that language errors due tosubclinical seizure activity can be recognized and cor-rect stimulation verified by recording stimulation arti-facts. The trial results are automatically excluded ifafterdischarges in response to stimulation areobserved. The use of EcoG and the choice of appro-priate neurophysiological parameters can aid in mini-mizing the risk of intraoperative clinical seizures.
SUBCORTICAL MAPPING
As with the literature on cortical motor mapping, mostof the studies on subcortical mapping report the rangeof stimulation intensities but fail to give a detailedanalysis of subcortical thresholds (Keles et al., 2004;Duffau et al., 2003; Bello et al., 2007; Henry et al.,2004). Interestingly, many authors state that for sub-cortical mapping they use the same current intensityto elicit either a cortical sensory or a motor response.However, there is, as yet, no clear explanation for thisneurophysiological strategy. The problem of currentspreading with increasing intensity and the differentimpedance of gray and white matter would suggestthat a mere translation of the cortical threshold to asubcortical level may not be the most appropriateapproach. Instead, the correspondence betweenanatomical information, as determined by DTI, andneurophysiological data with subcortical mappingshould be validated according to detailed thresholdinformation rather than the less specific “positive sub-cortical mapping sites”.Standardization of intraoperative neurophysiologicaltechniques should be based, above all, on correlationsbetween intraoperative findings and postoperative out-comes of the functions tested. From this perspective,some attempts have been made with regard to motorfunction by establishing preliminary criteria for the inter-pretation of motor evoked potentials in brain surgery(Neuloh and Schramm, 2004; Kombos et al., 2001).Currently, there are no evidence-based criteria toinform guidelines or substantiate the need for neuro-
physiological mapping; however, the usefulness ofthese techniques has been demonstrated by thecountless patients in whom the risk of postoperativelanguage deficits was minimized thanks to the use ofintraoperative neurophysiology.
Postoperative evaluation
Postoperative settings vary considerably. A compara-tive neurological examination is usually performedbetween the pre- and postoperative phase, oftenincluding language evaluation as well as MRI, with dif-ferent timings (immediate or delayed), but rarelyaccounting for complications or a wider battery of neu-ropsychological evaluations (Vives and Piepmeier,1999). Interestingly, the perioperative period, conven-tionally defined as 30 days after surgery, was extend-ed to 3-4 months in some studies or even up to 12months, which is ordinarily the duration set for evalu-ating permanent deficits (Sawaya et al., 1998; Duffauet al., 1999, 2003). While awake surgery is claimed to decrease postoper-ative morbidity in eloquent areas, immediate postop-erative evaluations showed a surprisingly high rate ofdeterioration of functions, usually >50%, which can beexplained by a surgeon’s confidence when workingwith eloquent areas, as demonstrated by progressiveimprovement within a few weeks. At 3 months aftersurgery, the improvement rate usually decreases to<20% (Duffau et al., 2003; Meyer et al., 2001; Bello etal., 2007).The degree of deterioration varies widely dependingon the clinical scale on which it is measured, oftenarbitrarily set at one level with high and low cutoffscores, which leads to gross differences in recordingdeficits (Signorelli et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2001;Sanai et al., 2008) or at two levels (mild, moderate-severe) (Haglund et al., 1994; Bello et al., 2007), or atthree levels (mild, moderate, severe) (Duffau et al.,2003). The quality of deficits is rarely defined, andusually only receptive, expressive or mixed language(Haglund et al., 1994; Sanai et al., 2008) deficits arementioned, which provides a simplified evaluationcompared with the preoperative evaluation. A fewauthors (Roux et al., 2003; Lubrano et al., 2004; Belloet al., 2007) used specific preoperative test categoriesfor postoperative site-by-site evaluation. To date it isunclear whether we are using redundant preoperativetests or an excessively restricted postoperative evalu-ation. The intraoperative results of patients with andwithout deficits have never been analyzed separately,but it must be taken into account that reporting by sub-jects with cognitive disorders is less reliable for cogni-tive mapping.Experience with motor pathway mapping has shownthe risk of relying on a single function while we areoperating on a wide anatomical area. False-negativesites are task-specific, largely function-specific, andcan produce complications (i.e., visual field defects,Sanai et al., 2008).
The Glioma Outcome Project classified complicationsas systemic, local, and neurological (Chang et al.,2003). This is the benchmark, or the minimum stan-dardized outcome set, against which the surgicalseries can be defined as operations harboring greaterrisk. In situations where negative sites are task-relat-ed, cognitive examination is advisable to check forfalse-negative results (Talacchi et al., 2012). However,complications are occasionally reported (Sanai et al.,2008; Peraud et al., 2004, Lacroix et al., 2001) andpatients, in spite of possible additional impairments,are seldom evaluated with neuropsychological toolseven though such tools have been shown to be effec-tive for studying cognitive functions in the immediatepostoperative period (Talacchi et al., 2011, 2012).Clinical assessment is also a measure of the studypopulation and outcome. In research settings wherefunctional assessment is more detailed and complex(Duffau et al., 2002, 2003; Bello et al., 2007), a clini-cal framework tailored ad hoc should be in place todemonstrate the safety and efficacy of experimentalwork (safety net). Similarly, neuroimaging is the method of choice toassess oncological outcome and to verify clinicalobservations, excluding additional lesions adjacent toor distant from the edge of the resected cavity. Timingand sequence are important. Obtaining an MRI scanwithin 48 hours of an operation allows for early deter-mination of oncological status and alterations in theblood-brain barrier, reliable interpretation of contrastenhancement, and the absence of a paramagneticeffect from hemoglobin degradation products. This 48-hour range is considered the best timing for MRI eval-uation (Albert et al., 1994). Some authors advocateDWI to detect ischemic damage, which helps in theinterpretation of vascular events as sequelae of theoperation (Sanai et al., 2008; Trinh et al., 2012).FLAIR images are the optimal sequence for low-gradegliomas, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imagesfor high-grade gliomas (Meyer et al., 2001; van denBent et al., 2011). Objective classification of tumor remnants requiresvolume measurements (Keles et al. 2006). However,these are rarely reported, which makes it difficult toestablish the possible advantage of cognitive mappingfor maximizing removal (Skrap et al., 2012). Few studies reported data about postoperative exam-inations in bilingual/multilingual patients. The litera-ture supports the fundamental hypothesis that thesepatients have common but dedicated areas for theirlanguages (Kim et al., 1997; Lucas et al., 2004;Ojemann et al., 1989; Roux and Trémoulet, 2002;Roux et al., 2003; Walker et al., 2004; Bello et al.,2006).
Concluding remarks
In conclusion, we found that in the majority of studiesusing neurophysiological and imaging-assisted sur-gery the quality of evidence for the benefits of map-
ping is scarce (mostly evidence class III, some evi-dence class II studies) and mainly based on historicalcontrol studies, retrospective analyses and expertopinion. Because of the variety of functions that canbe tested and sites identified as relevant in languagetasks, a clear terminology and consistency betweenpre-, intra- and post-operative testing is neededbefore the appropriateness of these techniques canbe validated (Zhang et al., 2012). Meanwhile, system-atic adjustment for likely confounding procedures maybe achieved through a careful comprehensive clinicalapproach which enhances safety but is demanding. Inthis context, more data are needed about non-lan-guage functions and quality of life. With this review we have provided an overview of themethodological controversies in awake surgery withthe aim of encouraging surgeons and neuroscientiststo collaborate in this fascinating setting.
References
Albert FK, Forsting M, Sartor K, et al (1994). Early postopera-
tive magnetic resonance imaging after resection of malig-
nant glioma: objective evaluation of residual tumor and its
influence on regrowth and prognosis. Neurosurgery 34:45-
60.
Behrens TE, Berg HJ, Jbabdi S, et al (2007). Probabilistic diffu-
sion tractography with multiple fibre orientations: what can
we gain? Neuroimage 34:144-155.
Bello L, Acerbi F, Giussani C, et al (2006). Intraoperative lan-
guage localization in multilingual patients with gliomas.
Neurosurgery 59:115-125.
Bello L, Gallucci M, Fava M, et al. (2007). Intraoperative subcor-
tical language tract mapping guides surgical removal of