ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
A pilot comparative study of intraoperative results and surgical outcomes between asleep-awake-asleep and general anesthesia modalities in temporal lobe resections.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perioperative Patient Blood Management: Evidence-Based Strategies for Surgeons and Anesthesiologists: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare intraoperative findings and surgical outcomes in temporal lobe resections in patients with mesial temporal sclerosis in the language dominant hemisphere performed under general (GA) versus asleep-awake-asleep (AAA) anesthesia modalities. Single-center retrospective case-control study involving 31 adults who had clinical/imaging/neurophysiology concordant evidence of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy in the language dominant hemisphere submitted to temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. GA was used in 20 patients and AAA in 11 patients. Presurgical characteristics of the patients, intraoperative hemodynamic and physiological findings or complications and postoperative outcomes including ILAE scale scores at least 1 year of follow-up were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent t-tests, Fisher's exact test, and χ² tests to identify differences between the groups. During the surgery, there were no notable differences between the groups in terms of hemodynamic parameters, arterial blood gas measurements, or bleeding. However, the surgery length was longer in AAA group. Postoperative outcomes, including hospital stay duration, complication rates, and follow-up periods, were also comparable without significant differences. Neurological deficits were minimal in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between them. Most patients achieved positive results based on the ILAE classification in both groups, with most experiencing either no seizures or rare, non-disabling seizures. AAA showed comparable results to general anesthesia, with no intraoperative complications or postoperative negative outcomes. However, due to the limited sample size, further evidence is needed to confirm its benefits in epilepsy surgery involving eloquent areas over GA.
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.