Linear Scalp Incision in Brain Tumor Surgery: Intraoperative and Postoperative Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Although the linear scalp incision is commonly used in neurosurgical practice, a systematic study elucidating its pros and cons in a specific surgical setting is lacking. Herein, we analyzed our experience with linear scalp incision in brain tumor surgery and the impact on intraoperative variables and postoperative complications. METHODS: Patients undergoing brain tumor surgery (January 2014-December 2021) at 2 neurosurgical departments were included and divided into 2 groups: linear or flap scalp incision. Patients' demographics characteristics, surgical variables, and wound-related complications were analyzed. RESULTS: More than a total of 1036 craniotomies, linear incision (mean length 6cm) was adopted in 282 procedures (27.2%). Mean maximum diameter of the craniotomy was 5.25 cm, with no statistical difference between the 2 groups. In emergency surgery (36 cases), the linear and flap incisions were used indifferently. Linear incision was predominant in supratentorial and suboccipital lesions. Flap incision was significantly more frequent among meningiomas (P < 0.01). Neuronavigation, operative microscope, and subgaleal drain were more frequently used in the flap scalp incision group (P = 0.01). Overall complication rate was comparable to flap scalp opening (P = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the linear incision was broadly applied for the removal of supratentorial and suboccipital tumors granting adequate surgical exposure with a low rate of postoperative complications. Tumors skull base localization resulted the only factor hindering the use of the linear incision. The choice of 1 incision over another didn't show to have any impact on intraoperative and postoperative variables, and it remains mainly based on surgeon expertise/preference.

Personalized surgery of brain tumors in language areas: the role of preoperative brain mapping in patients not eligible for awake surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Awake surgery represents the gold standard for resection of brain tumors close to the language network. However, in some cases patients may be considered not eligible for awake craniotomy. In these cases, a personalized brain mapping of the language network may be achieved by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS), which can guide resection in patients under general anesthesia. Here the authors describe their tailored nTMS-based strategy and analyze its impact on the extent of tumor resection (EOR) and language outcome in a series of patients not eligible for awake surgery. METHODS: The authors reviewed data from all patients harboring a brain tumor in or close to the language network who were considered not eligible for awake surgery and were operated on during asleep surgery between January 2017 and July 2022, under the intraoperative guidance of nTMS data. The authors analyzed the effectiveness of nTMS-based mapping data in relation to 1) the ability of the nTMS-based mapping to stratify patients according to surgical risks, 2) the occurrence of postoperative language deficits, and 3) the EOR. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients underwent preoperative nTMS cortical language mapping and nTMS-based tractography of language fascicles. According to the nTMS-based mapping, tumors in 115 patients (65.3%) were identified as true-eloquent tumors because of a close spatial relationship with the language network. Conversely, tumors in 61 patients (34.7%) for which the nTMS mapping disclosed a location at a safer distance from the network were identified as false-eloquent tumors. At 3 months postsurgery, a permanent language deficit was present in 13 patients (7.3%). In particular, a permanent deficit was observed in 12 of 115 patients (10.4%) with true-eloquent tumors and in 1 of 61 patients (1.6%) with false-eloquent lesions. With nTMS-based mapping, neurosurgeons were able to distinguish true-eloquent from false-eloquent tumors in a significant number of cases based on the occurrence of deficits at discharge (p < 0.0008) and after 3 months from surgery (OR 6.99, p = 0.03). Gross-total resection was achieved in 80.1% of patients overall and in 69.5% of patients with true-eloquent lesions and 100% of patients with false-eloquent tumors. CONCLUSIONS: nTMS-based mapping allows for reliable preoperative mapping of the language network that may be used to stratify patients according to surgical risks. nTMS-guided asleep surgery should be considered a good alternative for personalized preoperative brain mapping of the language network that may increase the possibility of safe and effective resection of brain tumors in the dominant hemisphere whenever awake mapping is not feasible.