Awake craniotomy versus craniotomy under general anesthesia for the surgical treatment of insular glioma: choices and outcomes
Objective: To investigate differences in outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for insular glioma using an awake craniotomy (AC) vs. a craniotomy under general anesthesia (GA). Methods: Data from patients treated at our hospital between 2005 and 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and longer term follow-up characteristics and outcomes of patients who underwent surgery for primary insular glioma using either an AC or GA were compared. Results: Of the 52 identified patients, 24 had surgery using an AC and 28 had surgery under GA. The extent of resection was similar for the two anesthesia techniques: the median extent of resection was 61.4% (IQR: 37.8–74.3%) in the WHO grade <4 AC group vs. 50.5% (IQR: 35.0–71.2%) in the grade <4 GA group and 73.4% (IQR: 54.8–87.2%) in the grade 4 AC group vs. 88.6% (IQR: 61.2–93.0%) in the grade 4 GA group. Consistent with literature, there were more early neurological deficits after an AC, while the GA group showed more new late neurological deficits; however, these trends were not significant. Survival was similar between the two groups, with 100% 1- and 2-year survival in the grade <4 groups. Conclusion: Our results showed that the extent of resection, neurological outcomes, and survival were similar using the two anesthesia techniques. Since AC is more challenging for the patient and for his or her caregiver after surgery, this finding has implications for clinical decision-making.
|Keywords||awake craniotomy, general anesthesia, glioma, Insula, retrospective|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616412.2017.1402147, hdl.handle.net/1765/111376|
Gravesteijn, B.Y. (B. Y.), Keizer, M.E. (M. E.), Vincent, A, Schouten, J.W, Stolker, R.J, & Klimek, M. (2018). Awake craniotomy versus craniotomy under general anesthesia for the surgical treatment of insular glioma: choices and outcomes. Neurological Research, 40(2), 87–96. doi:10.1080/01616412.2017.1402147