Application value of intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in cerebral eloquent area glioma surgery: a retrospective cohort study
Introduction Surgery for gliomas involving eloquent areas is a very challenging microsurgical procedure. Maximizing both the extent of resection (EOR) and preservation of neurological function have always been the focus of attention. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is widely used...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Discover. Oncology 2024-04, Vol.15 (1), p.118-118, Article 118 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction
Surgery for gliomas involving eloquent areas is a very challenging microsurgical procedure. Maximizing both the extent of resection (EOR) and preservation of neurological function have always been the focus of attention. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is widely used in this kind of surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of IONM in eloquent area glioma surgery.
Methods
Sixty-eight glioma patients who underwent surgical treatment from 2014 to 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study, which focused on eloquent areas. Clinical indicators and IONM data were analysed preoperatively, two weeks after surgery, and at the final follow-up. Logistic regression, Cox regression, and Kaplan‒Meier analyses were performed, and nomograms were then established for predicting prognosis. The diagnostic value of the IONM indicator was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Results
IONM had no effect on the postoperative outcomes, including EOR, intraoperative bleeding volume, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and neurological function status. However, at the three-month follow-up, the percentage of patients who had deteriorated function in the monitored group was significantly lower than that in the unmonitored group (23.3% vs. 52.6%; P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2730-6011 2730-6011 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s12672-024-00975-5 |