Search

Intraoperative language mapping of tumor and peritumor tissue is a well-established technique for avoiding permanent neurological deficits and maximizing extent of resection. Although there are several components of language that may be tested intraoperatively (eg, naming, writing, reading, and repetition), there is a lack of consistency in how patients are tested intraoperatively as well as the techniques involved to ensure safety during an awake procedure. Here, we review appropriate patient selection, neuroanesthetic techniques, cortical and subcortical language mapping stimulation paradigms, and selection of intraoperative language tasks used during awake craniotomies. We also expand on existing language mapping reviews by considering how intensity and timing of electrical stimulation may impact interpretation of mapping results.

Intraoperative functional mapping of tumor and peri-tumor tissue is a well-established technique for avoiding permanent neurologic deficits and maximizing extent of resection. Motor, language, and other cognitive domains may be assessed with intraoperative tasks. This article describes techniques used for motor and language mapping including awake mapping considerations in addition to less traditional intraoperative testing paradigms for cognition. It also discusses complications associated with mapping and insights into complication avoidance.

ObjectiveLesion-based mapping of speech pathways has been possible only during invasive neurosurgical procedures using direct cortical stimulation (DCS). However, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) may allow for lesion-based interrogation of language pathways noninvasively. Although not lesion-based, magnetoencephalographic imaging (MEGI) is another noninvasive modality for language mapping. In this study, we compare the accuracy of nTMS and MEGI with DCS.MethodsSubjects with lesions around cortical language areas underwent preoperative nTMS and MEGI for language mapping. nTMS maps were generated using a repetitive TMS protocol to deliver trains of stimulations during a picture naming task. MEGI activation maps were derived from adaptive spatial filtering of beta-band power decreases prior to overt speech during picture naming and verb generation tasks. The subjects subsequently underwent awake language mapping via intraoperative DCS. The language maps obtained from each of the 3 modalities were recorded and compared.ResultsnTMS and MEGI were performed on 12 subjects. nTMS yielded 21 positive language disruption sites (11 speech arrest, 5 anomia, and 5 other) while DCS yielded 10 positive sites (2 speech arrest, 5 anomia, and 3 other). MEGI isolated 32 sites of peak activation with language tasks. Positive language sites were most commonly found in the pars opercularis for all three modalities. In 9 instances the positive DCS site corresponded to a positive nTMS site, while in 1 instance it did not. In 4 instances, a positive nTMS site corresponded to a negative DCS site, while 169 instances of negative nTMS and DCS were recorded. The sensitivity of nTMS was therefore 90%, specificity was 98%, the positive predictive value was 69% and the negative predictive value was 99% as compared with intraoperative DCS. MEGI language sites for verb generation and object naming correlated with nTMS sites in 5 subjects, and with DCS sites in 2 subjects.ConclusionMaps of language function generated with nTMS correlate well with those generated by DCS. Negative nTMS mapping also correlates with negative DCS mapping. In our study, MEGI lacks the same level of correlation with intraoperative mapping; nevertheless it provides useful adjunct information in some cases. nTMS may offer a lesion-based method for noninvasively interrogating language pathways and be valuable in managing patients with peri-eloquent lesions.

ObjectDirect cortical stimulation (DCS) is the gold-standard technique for motor mapping during craniotomy. However, preoperative noninvasive motor mapping is becoming increasingly accurate. Two such noninvasive modalities are navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging. While MEG imaging has already been extensively validated as an accurate modality of noninvasive motor mapping, TMS is less well studied. In this study, the authors compared the accuracy of TMS to both DCS and MEG imaging.MethodsPatients with tumors in proximity to primary motor cortex underwent preoperative TMS and MEG imaging for motor mapping. The patients subsequently underwent motor mapping via intraoperative DCS. The loci of maximal response were recorded from each modality and compared. Motor strength was assessed at 3 months postoperatively.ResultsTranscranial magnetic stimulation and MEG imaging were performed on 24 patients. Intraoperative DCS yielded 8 positive motor sites in 5 patients. The median distance ± SEM between TMS and DCS motor sites was 2.13 ± 0.29 mm, and between TMS and MEG imaging motor sites was 4.71 ± 1.08 mm. In no patients did DCS motor mapping reveal a motor site that was unrecognized by TMS. Three of 24 patients developed new, early neurological deficit in the form of upper-extremity paresis. At the 3-month follow-up evaluation, 2 of these patients were significantly improved, experiencing difficulty only with fine motor tasks; the remaining patient had improvement to 4/5 strength. There were no deaths over the course of the study.ConclusionsMaps of the motor system generated with TMS correlate well with those generated by both MEG imaging and DCS. Negative TMS mapping also correlates with negative DCS mapping. Navigated TMS is an accurate modality for noninvasively generating preoperative motor maps.