SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Awake craniotomy and language assessment in deaf patients: a systematic review of feasibility, communication strategies, and outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAwake craniotomy (AC) relies on effective intraoperative communication for functional brain mapping and is often excluded in patients with hearing impairment. This exclusion is largely based on theoretical concerns rather than empirical evidence. This systematic review aimed to critically evaluate the feasibility, communication strategies, and reported neurological outcomes of AC in patients with hearing impairment.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to December 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Only English-language studies reporting AC in patients with hearing impairment were included. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, communication strategies, intraoperative mapping paradigms, and postoperative neurological outcomes.
resultsEight single-center case reports published between 2017 and 2025 were included, comprising eight individual adult patients (5 males, 62.5%; mean age 55.57 ± 11.75 years, range 45–75). Seven patients (87.5%) used sign language-based intraoperative communication supported by professional interpreters, while one patient used a bone-conduction voice amplifier. Language mapping was reported in seven cases. No included report described intraoperative communication failure or conversion to general anesthesia; however, adverse event reporting was inconsistent across studies. Gross total or near-total resection was reported in three cases (37.5%). No permanent new postoperative neurological deficits were described, although follow-up duration and outcome reporting were heterogeneous.
conclusionsThe available literature is limited to isolated case reports and provides very low-quality evidence. While these reports suggest that awake craniotomy can be technically feasible in highly selected hearing-impaired patients using individualized communication strategies, the findings are not generalizable and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. This review primarily highlights conceptual feasibility, identifies critical knowledge gaps, and proposes directions for future research rather than establishing safety or equivalence to standard AC populations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.