Department of Neurosurgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Neuroscience Institute, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2021 Mar;147:e118-e129. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.11.164. Epub 2020 Dec 8.
Electric cortical stimulation (ECS) has been the gold standard for intraoperative functional mapping in neurosurgery, yet it carries the risk of induced seizures. We assess the safety of focal cortical cooling (CC) as a potential alternative to ECS.
We reviewed 40 patients (13 with tumor and 27 with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy) who underwent intraoperative CC at the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics (CC group), of whom 38 underwent ECS preceding CC. Intraoperative and postoperative seizure incidence, postoperative neurologic deficits, and new postoperative radiographic findings were collected to assess CC safety. Fifty-five patients who underwent ECS mapping without CC (ECS-alone group) were reviewed as a control cohort. Another 25 patients who underwent anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) without CC or ECS (no ECS/no CC-ATL group) were also reviewed to evaluate long-term effects of CC.
Seventy-nine brain sites in the CC group were cooled, comprising inferior frontal gyrus (44%), precentral gyrus (39%), postcentral gyrus (6%), subcentral gyrus (4%), and superior temporal gyrus (6%). The incidence of intraoperative seizure(s) was 0% (CC group) and 3.6% (ECS-alone group). The incidence of seizure(s) within the first postoperative week did not significantly differ among CC (7.9%), ECS-alone (9.0%), and no ECS/no CC-ATL groups (12%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative radiographic change between CC (7.5%) and ECS-alone groups (5.5%). Long-term seizure outcome (Engel I+II) for mesial temporal epilepsy did not differ among CC (80%), ECS-alone (83.3%), and no ECS/no CC-ATL groups (83.3%).
CC when used as an intraoperative mapping technique is safe and may complement ECS.
电皮质刺激(ECS)一直是神经外科术中功能定位的金标准,但存在诱发癫痫的风险。我们评估了作为 ECS 替代方法的焦点皮质冷却(CC)的安全性。
我们回顾了在爱荷华大学医院和诊所接受术中 CC 的 40 名患者(13 名肿瘤患者和 27 名内侧颞叶癫痫患者),其中 38 名患者在 CC 前接受 ECS。收集术中及术后癫痫发作发生率、术后神经功能缺损及新的术后影像学发现,以评估 CC 的安全性。回顾了 55 名未行 CC 行 ECS 映射的患者(ECS 单一组)作为对照队列。还回顾了 25 名未行 CC 或 ECS 的前颞叶切除术(ATL)患者(无 ECS/无 CC-ATL 组),以评估 CC 的长期影响。
CC 组冷却了 79 个脑区,包括额下回(44%)、中央前回(39%)、中央后回(6%)、中央下回(4%)和颞上回(6%)。术中癫痫发作(s)的发生率为 0%(CC 组)和 3.6%(ECS 单一组)。CC(7.9%)、ECS 单一组(9.0%)和无 ECS/无 CC-ATL 组(12%)术后第 1 周内癫痫发作的发生率无显著差异。CC(7.5%)和 ECS 单一组(5.5%)之间术后影像学改变的发生率无显著差异。内侧颞叶癫痫的长期癫痫发作结局(Engel I+II)在 CC(80%)、ECS 单一组(83.3%)和无 ECS/无 CC-ATL 组(83.3%)之间无差异。
CC 作为术中定位技术是安全的,可补充 ECS。