ArticleBiomedical journal2021
Using cortical function mapping by awake craniotomy dealing with the patient with recurrent glioma in the eloquent cortex.
Article in Biomedical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of intraoperative mapping during re-resection in recurrent gliomas: a systematic review.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Research trends of glioma-related epilepsy: A bibliometric analysis from 2004 to 2023.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2024Review
- Predictors for delayed awakening in adult glioma patients receiving awake craniotomy under monitored anesthesia care.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- The clinical and neurocognitive functional changes with awake brain mapping for gliomas invading eloquent areas: Institutional experience and the utility of The Montreal Cognitive Assessment.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- One day at a time.Biomedical journal · 2021Article
- Level I and II deficits-A clinical survey on international practice of awake craniotomy and definitions of postoperative "major" and "minor" deficits.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAwake craniotomy is an effective method by which to reduce postoperative neurologic deficit in newly-diagnosed glioma patients. However, the level of functional preservation in patients undergoing resection of recurrent glioma remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate functional outcomes in patients with recurrent glioma undergoing awake craniotomy as compared with conservative general anesthesia craniotomy for tumor resection.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 225 patients who had recurrent gliomas from May 2013 to January 2016 in our institution. New-onset neurological deficits were evaluated on postoperative day 7 (early) and at 3 months (late). General performance was assessed both preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively.
resultsThe early neurological deficit rate was 3.8% in the awake craniotomy group and 21.6% in the general anesthesia group (p. 0.032), while the late neurological deficit rates were 3.8% and 11.5%, respectively (p. 0.231). Moreover, 46.1% of patients in the awake craniotomy group and 12.6% in the general anesthesia group demonstrated an improvement in the Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score (p < 0.001).
conclusionAwake craniotomy is an effective and safe method by which to perform recurrent glioma surgery. The neurological outcomes and general performance after awake craniotomy in recurrent glioma patients were better than those in patients undergoing general anesthesia craniotomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.