OBJECT: The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of intraoperative visuospatial mapping with the same criteria currently used to define essential language areas. METHODS: The authors compared surgical procedures in 2 patients with similar tumors (Grade II oligodendroglioma in the right parietal lobe) undergoing awake, image-assisted surgery for lesion removal with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The line bisection task was used in both patients but with different criteria. RESULTS: In the first case, the authors respected any area, even within the tumor, where significant interference was found (a stimulation-induced error in 2 of 3 applications defined an essential area). In the second case, they removed 1 essential area located in the tumor and recorded an uneventful clinical response soon thereafter. They continued to monitor the patient without stimulation and stopped the resection when the patient was close to the criteria valid for defining spatial neglect. The signs of spatial neglect were present for 3 days postoperatively and then cleared spontaneously. Subtotal tumor removal was achieved in both cases. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence in the present study reveals that areas for visuospatial functions cannot be assessed with the same criteria used for language functions, since essential areas located in the tumor can be safely removed.
OBJECT: The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of intraoperative visuospatial mapping with the same criteria currently used to define essential language areas. METHODS: The authors compared surgical procedures in 2 patients with similar tumors (Grade II oligodendroglioma in the right parietal lobe) undergoing awake, image-assisted surgery for lesion removal with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The line bisection task was used in both patients but with different criteria. RESULTS: In the first case, the authors respected any area, even within the tumor, where significant interference was found (a stimulation-induced error in 2 of 3 applications defined an essential area). In the second case, they removed 1 essential area located in the tumor and recorded an uneventful clinical response soon thereafter. They continued to monitor the patient without stimulation and stopped the resection when the patient was close to the criteria valid for defining spatial neglect. The signs of spatial neglect were present for 3 days postoperatively and then cleared spontaneously. Subtotal tumor removal was achieved in both cases. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence in the present study reveals that areas for visuospatial functions cannot be assessed with the same criteria used for language functions, since essential areas located in the tumor can be safely removed.
Authors: Andrew K Conner; Chad Glenn; Joshua D Burks; Tressie McCoy; Phillip A Bonney; Ahmed A Chema; Justin L Case; Scott Brunner; Cordell Baker; Michael Sughrue Journal: Cureus Date: 2016-11-17
Authors: Joshua D Burks; Lillian B Boettcher; Andrew K Conner; Chad A Glenn; Phillip A Bonney; Cordell M Baker; Robert G Briggs; Nathan A Pittman; Daniel L O'Donoghue; Dee H Wu; Michael E Sughrue Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 2.708