Minimally invasive keyhole temporal lobectomy approach for supramaximal glioma resection: A safety and feasibility study

The role of lobectomy in glioblastoma management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Lobectomy has recently been employed in the management of glioblastoma (GB). Compared to subtotal, gross total and supramarginal resection, lobectomy provides maximum cytoreduction and improves overall survival (OS).

Research question

The primary aim of this study is to compare lobectomy to other techniques for managing GB in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS). This study evaluated the association of the available surgical techniques for GB management with the reported relevant seizure outcome, operation time, length of stay, complication incidence, and Karnofsky performance status.

Materials and methods

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 2013 until April 2023. Random-effects models were employed. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the GRADE approach were used for estimating risk of bias and quality of evidence.

Results

We included six studies. Lobectomy demonstrated a mean OS of 25 months, compared to 13.72 months for gross total resection (GTR), and a PFS of 16.13 months, compared to 8.77 months for GTR. Comparing lobectomy to GTR, no statistically significant differences were observed regarding seizure management, length of stay, operation time, complications, and KPS due to limited amount of data.

Discussion and conclusion

Our analysis demonstrated that lobectomy compared to GTR has a tremendous impact on the OS and the PFS, which seems to be improved almost by a year. Lobectomy, while demanding from a technical standpoint, constitutes a safe surgical procedure but further studies should assess its exact role in the management of GB patients.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Supramarginal Resection versus Gross Total Resection in Glioblastoma: Can We Enhance Progression-Free Survival Time and Preserve Postoperative Safety?

To date, gross total resection (GTR) of the contrast-enhancing area of glioblastoma (GB) is the benchmark treatment regarding surgical therapy. However, GB infiltrates beyond those margins, and most tumors recur in close proximity to the initial resection margin. It is unclear whether a supramarginal resection (SMR) enhances progression-free survival (PFS) time without increasing the incidence of postoperative surgical complications. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to investigate SMR with regard to PFS and postoperative surgical complications. We searched for eligible studies comparing SMR techniques with conventional GTR in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Medline databases. From 3158 initially identified records, 11 articles met the criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. Our results illustrate significantly prolonged PFS time in SMR compared with GTR (HR: 11.16; 95% CI: 3.07–40.52, p = 0.0002). The median PFS of the SMR arm was 8.44 months (95% CI: 5.18–11.70, p < 0.00001) longer than the GTR arm. The rate of postoperative surgical complications (meningitis, intracranial hemorrhage, and CSF leaks) did not differ between the SMR group and the GTR group. SMR resulted in longer median progression-free survival without a negative postoperative surgical risk profile. Multicentric prospective randomized trials with a standardized definition of SMR and analysis of neurologic functioning and health-related quality of life are justified and needed to improve the level of evidence.

Safety of the utilization of telemedicine for brain tumor neurosurgery follow-up

Background

There is a need to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent brain tumor surgery with subsequent telemedicine or in-person follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We retrospectively included all patients who underwent surgery for brain tumor resection by a single neurosurgeon at our Institution from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions (March 2020) to August 2021. Outcomes were assessed by stratifying the patients using their preference for follow-up method (telemedicine or in-person).

Results

Three-hundred and eighteen (318) brain tumor patients who were included. The follow-up method of choice was telemedicine (TM) in 185 patients (58.17%), and in-person (IP) consults in 133 patients. We found that patients followed by TM lived significantly farther, with a median of 36.34 miles, compared to a median of 22.23 miles in the IP cohort (P = .0025). We found no statistical difference between the TM and the IP group, when comparing visits to the emergency department (ED) within 30 days after surgery (7.3% vs 6.01%, P = .72). Readmission rates, wound infections, and 30-day mortality were similar in both cohorts. These findings were also consistent after matching cohorts using a propensity score. The percentage of telemedicine follow-up consults was higher in the first semester (73.17%) of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the second (46.21%), and third semesters (47.86%).

Conclusions

Telehealth follow-up alternatives may be safely offered to patients after brain tumor surgery, thereby reducing patient burden in those with longer distances to the hospital or special situations as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mini-craniotomy for intra-axial brain tumors: a comparison with conventional craniotomy in 306 patients harboring non-dural based lesions

The use of a mini-craniotomy approach involving linear skin incision and a bone flap of about 3 cm has been reported for several neurosurgical diseases, such as aneurysms or cranial base tumors. More superficial lesions, including intra-axial tumors, may occasionally raise concerns due to insufficient control of the tumor boundaries. The convenience of a minimally invasive approach to intrinsic brain tumors was evaluated by comparing 161 patients who underwent mini-craniotomy (MC) for intra-axial brain tumors with a group of 145 patients operated on by the same surgical team through a conventional craniotomy (CC). Groups were propensity-matched for age, preoperative condition, size and location of the tumor, and pathological diagnosis. Results were analyzed focusing on operative time, the extent of resection, clinical outcome, hospitalization time, and time to start adjuvant therapy. Mini-craniotomy was equally effective in terms of extent of resection (GTR: 70.9% in the MC group vs 70.5% in the CC group) but had shorter operative time (average: 165 min in the MC group vs 205 min in the CC group p < 0.001) and lower rate of postoperative complications both superficial (1.03% vs 6.5% in the CC group p = 0.009) and deep (4% in the MC group vs 5.5% in the CC group p = 0,47). No relationship was found between the size or location of the tumor and resection rate. The MC group had reduced hospitalization time (average: 5.8 days vs 7.6 in CC group p < 0.001) and faster access to adjuvant therapies. 92.5% of the MC patients, which were scheduled for treatment, started radiotherapy within 8 weeks after surgery as opposed to 84.1% in the CC group (p = 0.04). These findings support the increasing use of mini-craniotomy for intra-axial brain tumors.

Supramarginal Resection for Glioblastoma: It Is Time to Set Boundaries! A Critical Review on a Hot Topic

Glioblastoma are the most common primary malignant brain tumors with a highly infiltrative behavior. The extent of resection of the enhancing component has been shown to be correlated to survival. Recently, it has been proposed to move the resection beyond the contrast-enhanced portion into the MR hyper intense tissue which typically surrounds the tumor, the so-called supra marginal resection (SMR). Though it should be associated with better overall survival (OS), a potential harmful resection must be avoided in order not to create new neurological deficits. Through this work, we aimed to perform a critical review of SMR in patients with Glioblastoma. A Medline database search and a pooled meta-analysis of HRs were conducted; 19 articles were included. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled OS HR of 0.64 (p = 0.052). SMR is generally considered as the resection of any T1w gadolinium-enhanced tumor exceeding FLAIR volume, but no consensus exists about the amount of volume that must be resected to have an OS gain. Equally, the role and the weight of several pre-operative features (tumor volume, location, eloquence, etc.), the intraoperative methods to extend resection, and the post-operative deficits, need to be considered more deeply in future studies.

Reducing complication rates for repeat craniotomies in glioma patients: a single-surgeon experience and comparison with the literature

Background

There is a concern that glioma patients undergoing repeat craniotomies are more prone to complications. The study’s goal was to assess if the complication profiles for initial and repeat craniotomies were similar, to determine predictors of complications, and to compare results with those in the literature.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted of glioma patients (WHO grade II–IV) who underwent either an initial or repeat craniotomy performed by the senior author from 2012 until 2019. Complications were recorded by discharge, 30 days, and 90 days postoperatively. New neurologic deficits were recorded by 90 days postoperatively. Multivariate regression was performed to identify factors associated with complications. A meta-analysis was performed to identify rates of complications based on number of prior craniotomies.

Results

Within the cohort of 714 patients, 400 (56%) had no prior craniotomies, 218 (30.5%) had undergone 1 prior craniotomy, and 96 (13.5%) had undergone ≥ 2 prior craniotomies. There were 27 surgical and 10 medical complications in 30 patients (4.2%) and 19 reoperations for complications in 19 patients (2.7%) with no deaths by 90 days. Complications, reoperation rates, and new neurologic deficits did not differ based on number of prior craniotomies. On multivariate analysis, older age (OR1.5, 95%CI 1.0–2.2) and significant leukocytosis due to steroid use (OR12.6, 95%CI 2.5–62.9) were predictors of complications. Complication rates in the cohort were lower than rates reported in the literature.

Conclusion

Contrary to prior reports in the literature, repeat craniotomies can be as safe as initial operations if surgeons implement best practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00701-021-05067-9.

Augmented reality head-mounted display-based incision planning in cranial neurosurgery: a prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Monitor and wand-based neuronavigation stations (MWBNSs) for frameless intraoperative neuronavigation are routinely used in cranial neurosurgery. However, they are temporally and spatially cumbersome; the OR must be arranged around the MWBNS, at least one hand must be used to manipulate the MWBNS wand (interrupting a bimanual surgical technique), and the surgical workflow is interrupted as the surgeon stops to "check the navigation" on a remote monitor. Thus, there is need for continuous, real-time, hands-free, neuronavigation solutions. Augmented reality (AR) is poised to streamline these issues. The authors present the first reported prospective pilot study investigating the feasibility of using the OpenSight application with an AR head-mounted display to map out the borders of tumors in patients undergoing elective craniotomy for tumor resection, and to compare the degree of correspondence with MWBNS tracing.

METHODS

Eleven consecutive patients undergoing elective craniotomy for brain tumor resection were prospectively identified and underwent circumferential tumor border tracing at the time of incision planning by a surgeon wearing HoloLens AR glasses running the commercially available OpenSight application registered to the patient and preoperative MRI. Then, the same patient underwent circumferential tumor border tracing using the StealthStation S8 MWBNS. Postoperatively, both tumor border tracings were compared by two blinded board-certified neurosurgeons and rated as having an excellent, adequate, or poor correspondence degree based on a subjective sense of the overlap. Objective overlap area measurements were also determined.

RESULTS

Eleven patients undergoing craniotomy were included in the study. Five patient procedures were rated as having an excellent correspondence degree, 5 had an adequate correspondence degree, and 1 had poor correspondence. Both raters agreed on the rating in all cases. AR tracing was possible in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small pilot study, the authors found that AR was implementable in the workflow of a neurosurgery OR, and was a feasible method of preoperative tumor border identification for incision planning. Future studies are needed to identify strategies to improve and optimize AR accuracy.