• Thomas Obermueller, Michael Schaeffner, Ehab Shiban, Doris Droese, Chiara Negwer, Bernhard Meyer, Florian Ringel, and Sandro M Krieg.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, Munich, Germany. Thomas.Obermueller@lrz.tum.de.
• Bmc Neurol. 2015 Oct 20; 15: 211.

BackgroundRecent data show differences in intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) in relation to the operated brain lesion. Due to the recently shown infiltrative nature of cerebral metastases, this work investigates the differences of IOM for cerebral metastases and glioma resection concerning sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values when aiming on preservation of motor function.MethodsBetween 2006 and 2011 we resected 171 eloquently located tumors (56 metastases, 115 gliomas) associated with the rolandic cortex or the pyramidal tract using IOM via direct cortical motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Postoperatively, MEP data were re-analyzed with respect to surgery-related paresis, residual tumor, and postoperative MRI with two different thresholds for MEP decline (50 and 80 % below baseline).ResultsMEP monitoring was successful in 158 cases (92.4 %). MEPs were stable in 54.7 % of all metastases cases and in 65.2 % of all glioma cases (p < 0.0001). After metastases resection, 21.4 % of patients improved and 21.9 % deteriorated in motor function. Glioma patients improved in only 5.4 % and worsened in 31.3 % of cases (p < 0.05). Resection was stopped due to MEP decline in 8.0 % (metastases) and 34.8 % of cases (gliomas) (p < 0.0002).ConclusionThere is significant difference between glioma and metastases resection. Post-hoc, metastases show more stable MEPs but a surprisingly high rate of surgery-related paresis and therefore a higher rate of false negative IOM.

40 keywords...

hide…