OBJECT: Electrocortical stimulation mapping is regarded as the gold standard of intraoperative mapping for predicting functional outcomes. Nevertheless, methodologies across institutions are inconsistent. Although many vary and maximize stimulation currents at each cortical site, some use a single current level to map the entire exposed cortex. The former comes at the cost of possibly inducing additional afterdischarge activity. The authors retrospectively reviewed their eperience with intraoperative electrocortical stimulation mapping to characterize variability of both mapping and afterdischarge thresholds. METHODS: Seventeen patients satisfied the study inclusion criteria. Significant variability in mapping thresholds was identified within individuals and across the patient population. Moreover, a statistically significant difference in mapping thresholds was demonstrated between the frontal and parietal/temporal lobes (p = 0.007, one-way analysis of variance). The authors report a surprisingly high incidence of afterdischarge during mapping, wide variability in afterdischarge thresholds within individuals and across the study population, and mapping thresholds regularly exceeding afterdischarge thresholds in neighboring cortex. Differences in afterdischarge thresholds across lobes only approached significance (p = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: To maximize identification of eloquent cortices in some clinical situations, it may be advantageous to maximize currents at each cortical site regardless of adjacent afterdischarge threshold rather than to map the entire exposed cortex at a single current level. Moreover, the current findings highlight the need for electrocorticography during electrocortical stimulation mapping, both to identify when afterdischarges occur and to verify stimulation by recording stimu lation artifacts. The advantages and limitations of maximizing currents at each cortical site as well as mapping at a single current level are discussed.
OBJECT: Electrocortical stimulation mapping is regarded as the gold standard of intraoperative mapping for predicting functional outcomes. Nevertheless, methodologies across institutions are inconsistent. Although many vary and maximize stimulation currents at each cortical site, some use a single current level to map the entire exposed cortex. The former comes at the cost of possibly inducing additional afterdischarge activity. The authors retrospectively reviewed their eperience with intraoperative electrocortical stimulation mapping to characterize variability of both mapping and afterdischarge thresholds. METHODS: Seventeen patients satisfied the study inclusion criteria. Significant variability in mapping thresholds was identified within individuals and across the patient population. Moreover, a statistically significant difference in mapping thresholds was demonstrated between the frontal and parietal/temporal lobes (p = 0.007, one-way analysis of variance). The authors report a surprisingly high incidence of afterdischarge during mapping, wide variability in afterdischarge thresholds within individuals and across the study population, and mapping thresholds regularly exceeding afterdischarge thresholds in neighboring cortex. Differences in afterdischarge thresholds across lobes only approached significance (p = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: To maximize identification of eloquent cortices in some clinical situations, it may be advantageous to maximize currents at each cortical site regardless of adjacent afterdischarge threshold rather than to map the entire exposed cortex at a single current level. Moreover, the current findings highlight the need for electrocorticography during electrocortical stimulation mapping, both to identify when afterdischarges occur and to verify stimulation by recording stimu lation artifacts. The advantages and limitations of maximizing currents at each cortical site as well as mapping at a single current level are discussed.
Authors: Francesco Sala; Paolo Manganotti; Stefan Grossauer; Vincenzo Tramontanto; Carlo Mazza; Massimo Gerosa Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Xiaozhen You; Ashley N Zachery; Eleanor J Fanto; Gina Norato; Sierra C Germeyan; Eric J Emery; Leigh N Sepeta; Madison M Berl; Chelsea L Black; Edythe Wiggs; Kareem Zaghloul; Sara K Inati; William D Gaillard; William H Theodore Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Rachel H Muster; Jacob S Young; Peter Y M Woo; Ramin A Morshed; Gayathri Warrier; Sofia Kakaizada; Annette M Molinaro; Mitchel S Berger; Shawn L Hervey-Jumper Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Uma R Mohan; Andrew J Watrous; Jonathan F Miller; Bradley C Lega; Michael R Sperling; Gregory A Worrell; Robert E Gross; Kareem A Zaghloul; Barbara C Jobst; Kathryn A Davis; Sameer A Sheth; Joel M Stein; Sandhitsu R Das; Richard Gorniak; Paul A Wanda; Daniel S Rizzuto; Michael J Kahana; Joshua Jacobs Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Hyang Woon Lee; W R S Webber; Nathan Crone; Diana L Miglioretti; Ronald P Lesser Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2009-11-08 Impact factor: 3.708