Low-threshold monopolar motor mapping for resection of lesions in motor eloquent areas in children and adolescents.

OBJECT Resection of lesions close to the primary motor cortex (M1) and the corticospinal tract (CST) is generally regarded as high-risk surgery due to reported rates of postoperative severe deficits of up to 50%. The authors' objective was to determine the feasibility and safety of low-threshold motor mapping and its efficacy for increasing the extent of lesion resection in the proximity of M1 and the CST in children and adolescents. METHODS The authors analyzed 8 consecutive pediatric patients in whom they performed 9 resections for lesions within or close (≤ 10 mm) to M1 and/or the CST. Monopolar high-frequency motor mapping with train-of-five stimuli (pulse duration 500 μsec, interstimulus interval 4.0 msec, frequency 250 Hz) was used. The motor threshold was defined as the minimal stimulation intensity that elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from target muscles (amplitude > 30 μV). Resection was performed toward M1 and the CST at sites negative to 1- to 3-mA high-frequency train-of-five stimulation. RESULTS The M1 was identified through high-frequency train-of-five via application of varying low intensities. The lowest motor thresholds after final resection ranged from 1 to 9 mA in 8 cases and up to 18 mA in 1 case, indicating proximity to motor neurons. Intraoperative electroencephalography documented an absence of seizures during all surgeries. Two transient neurological deficits were observed, but there were no permanent deficits. Postoperative imaging revealed complete resection in 8 patients and a very small remnant (< 0.175 cm3) in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS High-frequency train-of-five with a minimal threshold of 1-3 mA is a feasible and safe procedure for resections in the proximity of the CST. Thus, low-threshold motor mapping might help to expand the area for safe resection in pediatric patients with lesions located within the precentral gyrus and close to the CST, and may be regarded as a functional navigational tool. The additional use of continuous MEP monitoring serves as a safety feedback for the functional integrity of the CST, especially because the true excitability threshold in children is unknown.

[1]  T. Kombos,et al.  Subcortical mapping and monitoring during insular tumor surgery. , 2009, Neurosurgical focus.

[2]  J. Schramm,et al.  Somatosensory evoked potential phase reversal and direct motor cortex stimulation during surgery in and around the central region. , 1996, Neurosurgery.

[3]  O. Suess,et al.  Intra-Operative Mapping of the Motor Cortex During Surgery in and Around the Motor Cortex , 2000, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[4]  Marc R. Nuwer,et al.  Topographic mapping of somatosensory evoked potentials helps identify motor cortex more quickly in the operating room , 2005, Brain Topography.

[5]  J. Schramm,et al.  Transcranial high-frequency repetitive electrical stimulation for recording myogenic motor evoked potentials with the patient under general anesthesia. , 1996, Neurosurgery.

[6]  N. Thakor,et al.  Determination of current density distributions generated by electrical stimulation of the human cerebral cortex. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  Talma Hendler,et al.  Intraoperative mapping and monitoring of the corticospinal tracts with neurophysiological assessment and 3-dimensional ultrasonography-based navigation. Clinical article. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery.

[8]  M Ben,et al.  Intraoperative mapping and monitoring of the corticospinal tracts with neurophysiological assessment and 3-dimensional ultrasonography-based navigation , 2011 .

[9]  Kathleen Seidel,et al.  Gross total resection rates in contemporary glioblastoma surgery: results of an institutional protocol combining 5-aminolevulinic acid intraoperative fluorescence imaging and brain mapping. , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[10]  Geirmund Unsgård,et al.  Comparison of a strategy favoring early surgical resection vs a strategy favoring watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas. , 2012, JAMA.

[11]  Georg Neuloh,et al.  Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring with Supratentorial Surgery , 2004, Neurosurgery.

[12]  O. Suess,et al.  Comparison Between Monopolar and Bipolar Electrical Stimulation of the Motor Cortex , 1999, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[13]  J. Feiner,et al.  The Effect of Age on Motor Evoked Potentials in Children Under Propofol/Isoflurane Anesthesia , 2006, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[14]  B. Meyer,et al.  Predictive value and safety of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring with motor evoked potentials in glioma surgery. , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[15]  Giuseppe Scotti,et al.  Motor and language DTI Fiber Tracking combined with intraoperative subcortical mapping for surgical removal of gliomas , 2008, NeuroImage.

[16]  H. Duffau,et al.  Usefulness of intraoperative electrical subcortical mapping during surgery for low-grade gliomas located within eloquent brain regions: functional results in a consecutive series of 103 patients. , 2003, Journal of neurosurgery.

[17]  H. Otsubo,et al.  Complex Central Cortex in Pediatric Patients With Malformations of Cortical Development , 2002, Journal of child neurology.

[18]  Lojana Tuntiyatorn,et al.  Plasticity of the motor cortex in patients with brain tumors and arteriovenous malformations: a functional MR study. , 2011, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[19]  A. Raabe,et al.  The warning-sign hierarchy between quantitative subcortical motor mapping and continuous motor evoked potential monitoring during resection of supratentorial brain tumors. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery.

[20]  H Duffau,et al.  Contribution of intraoperative electrical stimulations in surgery of low grade gliomas: a comparative study between two series without (1985–96) and with (1996–2003) functional mapping in the same institution , 2005, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[21]  Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa,et al.  ASSOCIATION OF SURGICALLY ACQUIRED MOTOR AND LANGUAGE DEFICITS ON OVERALL SURVIVAL AFTER RESECTION OF GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[22]  F. Zanella,et al.  Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. , 2006, The Lancet. Oncology.

[23]  M. Krammer,et al.  Significance of intraoperative motor function monitoring using transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (MEP) in patients with spinal and cranial lesions near the motor pathways , 2009, British journal of neurosurgery.

[24]  H. Duffau,et al.  Surgery for low-grade glioma infiltrating the central cerebral region: location as a predictive factor for neurological deficit, epileptological outcome, and quality of life. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery.

[25]  Kensuke Kawai,et al.  The motor-evoked potential threshold evaluated by tractography and electrical stimulation. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery.

[26]  P. Lanteri,et al.  Brain surgery in motor areas: the invaluable assistance of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. , 2003, Journal of neurosurgical sciences.

[27]  W. Penfield,et al.  SOMATIC MOTOR AND SENSORY REPRESENTATION IN THE CEREBRAL CORTEX OF MAN AS STUDIED BY ELECTRICAL STIMULATION , 1937 .

[28]  A. Szelényi,et al.  Transcranial electric stimulation for intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: Stimulation parameters and electrode montages , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[29]  H. Duffau,et al.  Intra-Operative Direct Electrical Stimulations of the Central Nervous System: The Salpêtrière Experience With 60 Patients , 1999, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[30]  G A Ojemann,et al.  Brain mapping techniques to maximize resection, safety, and seizure control in children with brain tumors. , 1989, Neurosurgery.

[31]  A. Raabe,et al.  Low-Threshold Monopolar Motor Mapping for Resection of Primary Motor Cortex Tumors , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[32]  R B King,et al.  Cortical localization and monitoring during cerebral operations. , 1987, Journal of neurosurgery.

[33]  M. Duchowny,et al.  A safe and effective paradigm to functionally map the cortex in childhood. , 1992, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[34]  Makoto Taniguchi,et al.  Modification of cortical stimulation for motor evoked potentials under general anesthesia: technical description. , 1993, Neurosurgery.

[35]  Ganesh Rao,et al.  Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging-guided tractography with integrated monopolar subcortical functional mapping for resection of brain tumors. Clinical article. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery.

[36]  Pedro Roldán,et al.  Multimodal navigation in the functional microsurgical resection of intrinsic brain tumors located in eloquent motor areas: role of tractography. , 2010, Neurosurgical focus.

[37]  V. Deletis,et al.  Transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring for brain tumor resection. , 2001, Neurosurgery.

[38]  H. Otsubo,et al.  Stimulation threshold potentials of intraoperative cortical motor mapping using monopolar trains of five in pediatric epilepsy surgery , 2010, Child's Nervous System.

[39]  Andreas Raabe,et al.  The silent loss of neuronavigation accuracy: a systematic retrospective analysis of factors influencing the mismatch of frameless stereotactic systems in cranial neurosurgery. , 2013, Neurosurgery.

[40]  U. D. Schmid,et al.  Safe surgery of lesions near the motor cortex using intra-operative mapping techniques: a report on 50 patients , 2005, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[41]  M. Berger,et al.  Identification of motor pathways during tumor surgery facilitated by multichannel electromyographic recording. , 1999, Journal of neurosurgery.

[42]  H. Emmert,et al.  Topographic Mapping of Somatosensory Representation Areas , 1989 .

[43]  H. Morton,et al.  Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject , 1980, Nature.

[44]  A. Szelényi,et al.  Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring during Cerebral Aneurysm Surgery: Technical Aspects and Comparison of Transcranial and Direct Cortical Stimulation , 2005, Neurosurgery.