Exoscope aided trans-sulcal minimally invasive parafascicular resection of a paediatric brainstem pilocytic astrocytoma using a tubular retractor system

Impact of Preoperative Mapping and Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Minimally Invasive Parafascicular Surgery for Deep-Seated Lesions

BACKGROUND

Transsulcal tubular retractor-assisted minimally invasive parafascicular surgery changes the surgical strategy for deep-seated lesions by promoting a deficit-sparing approach. When integrated with preoperative brain mapping and intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM), this approach may potentially improve patient outcomes. In this study, we assessed the impact of preoperative brain mapping and IONM in tubular retractor-assisted neuro-oncological surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included patients who underwent transsulcal tubular retractor-assisted minimally invasive parafascicular surgery for resection of deep-seated brain tumors from 2016 to 2022. The cohort was divided into 3 groups: group 1, no preoperative mapping or IONM (17 patients); group 2, IONM only (25 patients); group 3, both preoperative mapping and IONM (38 patients).

RESULTS

We analyzed 80 patients (33 males and 47 females) with a median age of 46.5 years (range: 1-81 years). There was no significant difference in mean tumor volume (26.2 cm3 [range 1.07-97.4 cm3]; P = 0.740) and mean preoperative depth of the tumor (31 mm [range 3-65 mm], P = 0.449) between the groups. A higher proportion of high-grade gliomas and metastases was present within group 3 (P = 0.003). IONM was related to fewer motor (P = 0.041) and language (P = 0.032) deficits at hospital discharge. Preoperative mapping and IONM were also related to shorter length of stay (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative and intraoperative brain mapping and monitoring enhance transsulcal tubular retractor-assisted minimally invasive parafascicular surgery in neuro-oncology. Patients had a reduced length of stay and prolonged overall survival. IONM alone reduces postoperative neurological deficit.

Neuroendoscopy: The State of the Art

Over the past century, neuroendoscopy developed into a mainstay of neurosurgical practice, allowing for minimally invasive approaches to the ventricles, skull base, and spine. Its development, however, is far from over. Current challenges are inherent in the very feature that renders neuroendoscopy appealing-the small channels of the modern endoscope allow surgery to be performed with minimal tissue retraction, but they also make hemostasis and resection of large masses difficult. New optics allow for significantly improved image quality; yet open craniotomy often allows for 3-dimensional visualization and bimanual dissection and is part of everyday neurosurgical training. Finally, the utilization of neuroendoscopy remains limited, presenting ongoing challenges for neurosurgical teaching and achievement of technical mastery.

Brain retraction injury: systematic literature review

Cerebral retraction is frequently required in cranial surgery to access deep areas. Brain retractors have been systematically used in the past, but they have been associated with brain injury. Nonetheless, they are still used and, even recently, new systems have been advocated. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic and critical review of brain retraction injury. A systematic literature review was performed in February 2023 according to PRISMA statement. Search terms included brain retraction and injury, with their variations and pertinent associations. Studies reporting qualitative and quantitative data on brain retraction injury were included. Out of 1689 initially retrieved articles, 90 and 26 were included in the systematic review for qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. The definition of brain retraction injury varies and its reported incidence in clinical studies is 5-10%, up to 47% if cerebral edema is considered. Some studies have hypothesized threshold values of pressures to be respected in order to prevent complications, with most data deriving from animal studies. At present, there are no instruments for brain retraction that can guarantee full safety. Some form of cerebral retraction might always be necessary for specific scenarios. Further studies are needed to collect quantitative and, ideally, clinical and comparative data on pressure thresholds to develop retraction systems that can reduce injury to a minimum.