Departments of 1 Neurological Surgery.
Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
J Neurosurg. 2017 Oct;127(4):781-789. doi: 10.3171/2016.8.JNS16443. Epub 2017 Jan 6.
OBJECTIVE The dominant inferior parietal lobule (IPL) contains cortical and subcortical regions essential for language. Although resection of IPL tumors could result in language deficits, little is known about the likelihood of postoperative language morbidity or the risk factors predisposing to this outcome. METHODS The authors retrospectively examined a series of patients who underwent resections of gliomas from the dominant IPL. Postoperative language outcomes were characterized across the patient population. To identify factors associated with postoperative language morbidity, the authors then compared features between those patients who experienced postoperative deficits and those who experienced no postoperative language dysfunction. RESULTS Twenty-four patients were identified for analysis. Long-term language deficits occurred in 29.2% of patients (7 of 24): 3 of these patients had experienced preoperative language deficits, whereas new long-term language deficits occurred in 4 patients (16.7%; 4 of 24). Of those patients who exhibited preoperative language deficits, 62.5% (5 of 8) experienced long-term resolution of their language deficits with surgical treatment. All patients underwent intraoperative brain mapping by direct electrical stimulation. Awake, intraoperative cortical language mapping was performed on 17 patients (70.8%). Positive cortical language sites were identified in 23.5% of these patients (4 of 17). Awake, intraoperative subcortical language mapping was performed in 8 patients (33.3%). Positive subcortical language sites were identified in 62.5% of these patients (5 of 8). Patients with positive cortical language sites exhibited a higher rate of long-term language deficits (3 of 4, 75%), compared with those who did not (1 of 13, 7.7%; p = 0.02). Although patients with positive subcortical language sites exhibited a higher rate of long-term language deficits than those who exhibited only negative sites (40.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.46). Additionally, patients with long-term language deficits were older than those without deficits (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In a small number of patients with preoperative language deficits, IPL glioma resection resulted in improved language function. However, in patients with intact preoperative language function, resection of IPL gliomas may result in new language deficits, especially if the tumors are diffuse, high-grade lesions. Thus, language-dominant IPL glioma resection is not risk-free, yet it is safe and its morbidity can be reduced by the use of cortical and subcortical stimulation mapping.
优势侧顶下小叶(IPL)包含皮质和皮质下区域,对语言至关重要。尽管 IPL 肿瘤切除术可能导致语言缺陷,但术后语言发病率的可能性或导致这种结果的风险因素知之甚少。
作者回顾性检查了一组接受优势 IPL 胶质瘤切除术的患者。对患者人群的术后语言结果进行了描述。为了确定与术后语言发病率相关的因素,作者比较了术后出现语言障碍和无术后语言功能障碍的患者之间的特征。
确定了 24 名患者进行分析。29.2%的患者(24 名中的 7 名)出现长期语言缺陷:3 名患者术前存在语言缺陷,4 名患者(16.7%;24 名中的 4 名)出现新的长期语言缺陷。在术前有语言缺陷的患者中,62.5%(5 名中的 5 名)在手术治疗后长期缓解其语言缺陷。所有患者均接受术中直接电刺激脑映射。17 名患者(70.8%)进行了清醒术中皮质语言映射。这些患者中有 23.5%(17 名中的 4 名)确定了阳性皮质语言部位。8 名患者(33.3%)进行了清醒术中皮质下语言映射。这些患者中有 62.5%(8 名中的 5 名)确定了阳性皮质下语言部位。阳性皮质语言部位的患者出现长期语言缺陷的比率较高(4 名中的 3 名,75%),而非阳性皮质语言部位的患者则较低(13 名中的 1 名,7.7%;p = 0.02)。虽然阳性皮质下语言部位的患者出现长期语言缺陷的比率高于仅表现为阴性部位的患者(分别为 40.0%和 0.0%),但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.46)。此外,有长期语言缺陷的患者年龄大于无语言缺陷的患者(p < 0.05)。
在少数术前有语言缺陷的患者中,IPL 胶质瘤切除术可改善语言功能。然而,在术前语言功能完整的患者中,IPL 胶质瘤切除术可能导致新的语言缺陷,尤其是肿瘤为弥漫性、高级别病变时。因此,语言优势 IPL 胶质瘤切除术并非无风险,但通过使用皮质和皮质下刺激映射,可以安全地降低发病率。