ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Level I and II deficits-A clinical survey on international practice of awake craniotomy and definitions of postoperative "major" and "minor" deficits.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurological outcomes and survival in patients with intracranial lesions undergoing awake craniotomy: a descriptive retrospective single-center study.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Brain tumor surgery affecting the left frontal aslant tract and clinical outcome: a study of 23 glioma patients.Brain & spine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Awake craniotomy (AC) is a technique that balances maximum resection and minimal postoperative deficits in patients with intracranial tumors. To aid in the comparability of functional outcomes after awake surgery, this study investigated its international practice and aimed to define categories of postoperative deficits. Methods: A survey was distributed via neurosurgical networks in Europe (European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, EANS), the Netherlands (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Neurochirurgie, NVVN), Belgium (Belgian Society of Neurosurgery, BSN), and the United States (Congress of Neurological Surgeons, CNS) between April 2022 and April 2023. Questions involved decision-making, including patient selection, anxiety assessment, and termination of resection. Interpretation of "major" and "minor" deficits, respectively labeled "level I" and "level II," was assessed. Results: Three hundred and ninety-five neurosurgeons from 46 countries completed the survey. Significant heterogeneity was found in the domains of indications, anxiety assessment, seizure management, and termination of resection. Moreover, the interpretation of "major" deficits mainly included language and motor impairments. Analysis across deficit categories showed significant overlap in the domains of executive function, social cognition, and vision. Secondly, "minor" deficits and "minor cognitive" deficits showed vast overlap. Conclusions: This survey demonstrates high variability between neurosurgeons in AC practice across multiple domains, inviting international efforts to reach a consensus regarding the standardization and grading of postoperative deficits. The proposed categories of "level I" and "level II" deficits may aid in this standardization. It allows for systematic assessment of the benefit of surgery in neuro-oncology patients and allows for comparison of surgical outcomes between institutions and surgeons. This may help to optimize international guidelines for surgical neuro-oncology, including AC.
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.