4.6 Article

Recurrent Supplementary Motor Area Syndrome Following Repeat Brain Tumor Resection Involving Supplementary Motor Cortex

期刊

OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 447-455

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000847

关键词

Brain tumor; Glioma; Motor cortex; Supplementary motor area; Supplementary motor area syndrome

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIH F32-NS087664]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Supplementary motor area (SMA) syndrome occurs after surgery involving the SMA and is characterized by contralateral hemiparesis with or without speech impairment (dependent on involvement of the dominant SMA), which is transient and characteristically resolves over the course of weeks to months. Recurrent SMA syndrome after repeat craniotomy has not been previously described. OBJECTIVE: To describe the presentation and clinical course of patients who developed recurrent SMA syndrome after redo resection of tumors involving the SMA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 15 patients who underwent repeated resection of low-grade glioma from the superior and middle frontal gyrus. Of these patients, we identified 6 cases of recurrent SMA syndrome. RESULTS: Six patients had a documented SMA syndrome occurring after initial and subsequent resection of tumor in proximity to the SMA. Intraoperative localization of eloquent motor and language cortex was achieved in each patient by using a combination of somatosensory evoked potentials and electrocortical stimulation mapping. Location of tumor and extent of resection was examined with magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSION: This series demonstrates that recurrent SMA syndrome occurs in patients undergoing repeat resection of tumors involving the SMA. The presence of recurrent SMA syndrome provides support for reorganization of SMA function to adjacent ipsilateral cortex after resection. Patients with recurrent neoplasms of the SMA should be counseled on the possibility of recurrent SMA syndrome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据