Advertisement

Neurophysiological examination combined with functional intraoperative navigation using TMS in patients with brain tumor near the central region—a pilot study

  • Katharina Köhlert
  • Katja JähneEmail author
  • Dorothee Saur
  • Jürgen Meixensberger
Original Article - Brain Tumors
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Brain tumors

Abstract

Objective

Feasibility and value of non-invasive transcranial magnetic brain stimulation (TMS MAGVENTURE® MagPro R30 Denmark) for preoperative diagnosis and surgical planning of brain tumor operations in everyday clinical practice.

Methods

A prospective monocentric study was conducted, which included preoperative neurological and electrophysiological examination, TMS, and display of functional data in the navigation system (LOCALITE® TMS Navigator Germany). During surgery, the TMS data were correlated with the intraoperative monitoring (IOM). Twenty-four hours to 96 h and after at least 3 months, follow-ups with neurological, electrophysiological examinations and TMS stimulation were performed.

Results

Twenty-five patients with tumors in or near by the primary motor cortex region were included in the study. Twenty-one patients completed preoperative and first postoperative TMS and the neurological examination. Eight of 21 patients showed slight worsening of primary motor cortex function, 8 patients had an unchanged state, and 4 patients showed an improvement early after surgery. The changes of the electrophysiological examination like significant delay of the latency and/or reduced amplitudes matched well with the postoperative neurological outcome: if patients showed a worsening of the SEP’s and MEP’s, the postoperative results revealed deterioration.

Conclusion

A preoperatively performed TMS using the MAGVENTURE® MagPro R30 and the LOCALITE® TMS Navigator could be established in our clinical daily practice and allowed a safe and reliable mapping of the primary motor cortex in order to minimize the risk of postoperative neurological deficits and improve the neurological outcome of the patients.

Keywords

Transcranial magnetic stimulation Brain tumor surgery Primary motor cortex Intraoperative monitoring Brain mapping 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants of the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Aliño JJL, Jiménez JLP, Flores SC, Alcocer MIL (2010) Efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in depression: naturalistic study. Actas Esp Psiquiatr 38(2):87–93Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arlt F, Chalopin C, Müns A, Meixensberger J, Lindner D (2016) Intraoperative 3D contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): a prospective study of 50 patients with brain tumours. Acta Neurochir 158(4):685–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL (1985) Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet 1(8437):1106–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bizzi A, Blasi V, Falini A, Ferroli P, Cadioli M, Danesi U, Aquino D, Marras C, Caldiroli D, Broggi G (2008) Presurgical functional MR imaging of language and motor functions: validation with intraoperative electrocortical mapping. Radiology 248(2):579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brunelin J, Poulet E, Boeuve C, Zeroug-vial H, d'Amato T, Saoud M (2007) Efficacité de la stimulation magnétique transcrânienne (rTMS) dans le traitement de la dépression: revue de la littérature (Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in major depression: a review). Encephale 33(2):126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cedzich C, Taniguchi M, Schäfer S, Schramm J (1996) Somatosensory evoked potential phase reversal and direct motor cortex stimulation during surgery in and around the central region. Neurosurgery 38(5):962–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fricke C, Gentner R, Rumpf J, Weise D, Saur D, Classen J (2017) Differential spatial representation of precision and power grasps in the human motor system. Neuroimage 158:58–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartwigsen G, Bzdok D, Klein M, Wawrzyniak M, Stockert A, Wrede K, Classen J, Saur D (2017) Rapid short-term reorganization in the language network. Elife 6.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25964
  9. 9.
    Kombos T, Picht T, Derdilopoulos A, Suess O (2009) Impact of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring on surgery of high-grade gliomas. J Clin Neurophysiol 26(6):422–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krieg SM (2017) Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in neurosurgery. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krieg SM, Sabih J, Bulubasova L, Obermueller T, Negwer C, Janssen I, Shiban E, Meyer B, Ringel F (2014) Preoperative motor mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation improves outcome for motor eloquent lesions. Neuro-oncology 16(9):1274–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krieg SM, Shiban E, Droese D, Gempt J, Buchmann N, Pape H, Ryang Y, Meyer B, Ringel F (2012) Predictive value and safety of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring with motor evoked potentials in glioma surgery. Neurosurgery 70(5):1060–1070 discussion 1070-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krieg SM, Sollmann N, Obermueller T, Sabih J, Bulubas L, Negwer C, Moser T, Droese D, Boeckh-Behrens T, Ringel F, Meyer B (2015) Changing the clinical course of glioma patients by preoperative motor mapping with navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation. BMC Cancer 15:231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krishnan R, Raabe A, Hattingen E, Szelényi A, Yahya H, Hermann E, Zimmermann M, Seifert V (2004) Functional magnetic resonance imaging-integrated neuronavigation: correlation between lesion-to-motor cortex distance and outcome. Neurosurgery 55(4):904–914 discusssion 914-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehéricy S, Duffau H, Cornu P, Capelle L, Pidoux B, Carpentier A, Auliac S, Clemenceau S, Sichez JP, Bitar A, Valery CA, van Effenterre R, Faillot T, Srour A, Fohanno D, Philippon J, Le Bihan D, Marsault C (2000) Correspondence between functional magnetic resonance imaging somatotopy and individual brain anatomy of the central region: comparison with intraoperative stimulation in patients with brain tumors. J Neurosurg 92(4):589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindner D, Trantakis C, Renner C, Arnold S, Schmitgen A, Schneider J, Meixensberger J (2006) Application of intraoperative 3D ultrasound during navigated tumor resection. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 49(4):197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merton PA, Morton HB (1980) Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject. Nature 285(5762):227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Müns A, Meixensberger J, Arnold S, Schmitgen A, Arlt F, Chalopin C, Lindner D (2011) Integration of a 3D ultrasound probe into neuronavigation. Acta Neurochir 153(7):1529–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Picht T, Frey D, Thieme S, Kliesch S, Vajkoczy P (2016) Presurgical navigated TMS motor cortex mapping improves outcome in glioblastoma surgery: a controlled observational study. J Neuro-Oncol 126(3):535–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Picht T, Schmidt S, Brandt S, Frey D, Hannula H, Neuvonen T, Karhu J, Vajkoczy P, Suess O (2011) Preoperative functional mapping for rolandic brain tumor surgery: comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation to direct cortical stimulation. Neurosurgery 69(3):581–588 discussion 588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Picht T, Schulz J, Hanna M, Schmidt S, Suess O, Vajkoczy P (2012) Assessment of the influence of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation on surgical planning for tumors in or near the motor cortex. Neurosurgery 70(5):1248–1256 discussion 1256-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siebner HR, Ziemann U (2007) Das TMS-Buch. In: Handbuch der transkraniellen Magnetstimulation. Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sollmann N, Goblirsch-Kolb MF, Ille S, Butenschoen VM, Boeckh-Behrens T, Meyer B, Ringel F, Krieg SM (2016) Comparison between electric-field-navigated and line-navigated TMS for cortical motor mapping in patients with brain tumors. Acta Neurochir 158(12):2277–2289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takahashi S, Vajkoczy P, Picht T (2013) Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for mapping the motor cortex in patients with rolandic brain tumors. Neurosurg Focus 34(4):E3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tarapore PE, Picht T, Bulubas L, Shin Y, Kulchytska N, Meyer B, Berger MS, Nagarajan SS, Krieg SM (2016) Safety and tolerability of navigated TMS for preoperative mapping in neurosurgical patients. Clin Neurophysiol 127(3):1895–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity Hospital LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations