Intraoperative Use of Functional MRI for Surgical Decision Making after Limited or Infeasible Electrocortical Stimulation Mapping. Issue 2 (22nd December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rigolo, Laura; Essayed, Walid Ibn; Tie, Yanmei; Norton, Isaiah; Mukundan, Srinivasan; Golby, Alexandra
• Is Part Of: Journal of neuroimaging. Volume 30:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 184
• Page End: 191
• Publication Date: 2019-12-22
• Subjects: fMRI -- brain mapping -- brain neoplasms -- neurosurgery -- neuronavigation; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Nervous system -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Système nerveux -- Maladies -- Diagnostic -- Périodiques; Imagerie médicale; Neuroimagerie; Neurologie; Système nerveux; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.804754
• DOI: 10.1111/jon.12683
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1051-2284

Abstract

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is becoming widely recognized as a key component of preoperative neurosurgical planning, although intraoperative electrocortical stimulation (ECS) is considered the gold standard surgical brain mapping method. However, acquiring and interpreting ECS results can sometimes be challenging. This retrospective study assesses whether intraoperative availability of fMRI impacted surgical decision‐making when ECS was problematic or unobtainable. METHODS: Records were reviewed for 191 patients who underwent presurgical fMRI with fMRI loaded into the neuronavigation system. Four patients were excluded as a bur‐hole biopsy was performed. Imaging was acquired at 3 Tesla and analyzed using the general linear model with significantly activated pixels determined via individually determined thresholds. fMRI maps were displayed intraoperatively via commercial neuronavigation systems. RESULTS: Seventy‐one cases were planned ECS; however, 18 (25.35%) of these procedures were either not attempted or aborted/limited due to: seizure (10), patient difficulty cooperating with the ECS mapping (4), scarring/limited dural opening (3), or dural bleeding (1). In all aborted/limited ECS cases, the surgeon continued surgery using fMRI to guide surgical decision‐making. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative deficits between cases with completed ECS and those with limited/aborted ECS. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative fMRI allowed for continuation of surgery in over one‐fourth of patients in which planned ECS was incomplete or impossible, without a significantly different incidence of postoperative deficits compared to the patients with completed ECS. This demonstrates additional value of fMRI beyond presurgical planning, as fMRI data served as a backup method to ECS.