ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Two-step awake craniotomy for diffuse supratentorial gliomas.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Maximal safe awake resection is the standard for diffuse gliomas, as it optimizes extent of resection while preserving functional integrity. Progressive loss of accuracy during neurocognitive testing may preclude completion of a maximal function-based resection. We assessed the prevalence, feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a 2-step awake craniotomy approach and identified predictors for requiring a second awake procedure to achieve maximal function-based resection. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study of 449 consecutive supratentorial diffuse glioma awake craniotomies (2009-2024). Clinical, neurocognitive, imaging, oncological, and intraoperative data were collected. Results: Among 449 awake craniotomies, 12 (2.8%) required a second awake procedure. The first surgeries were interrupted due to increasing spontaneous errors during intraoperative tests, fatigue, loss of participation, or pain-induced high blood pressure. The interval between procedures ranged from 1.0 to 7.5 months. Compared with all other awake surgeries, the second procedure showed no increase in intraoperative adverse events. Compared to the first awake procedure, the second awake procedure achieved a median additional resection rate of 32.3% (mean 38.6 ± 24.4%; range 8%-83.2%) across all patients. The proportion of complete resections increased from 0/12 to 6/12. Independent predictors of a 2-step awake craniotomy were preoperative attention impairment ( Conclusion: Two-step awake craniotomy is a rare but effective and safe strategy when the initial awake procedure must be prematurely stopped. Patients with attention deficits, left-sided lesions, or insular tumor involvement are more likely to require a 2-step awake 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.