4.6 Article

Safety and tolerability of navigated TMS for preoperative mapping in neurosurgical patients

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 127, 期 3, 页码 1895-1900

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.042

关键词

Transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS; Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation, nTMS; Eloquent brain tumor; Pre-operative mapping; Motor mapping; Language mapping

资金

  1. Wilhelm Sander Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is a non-invasive technique for presurgical motor and language mapping in patients with brain lesions. This study examines the safety and tolerability of nTMS in a large, multi-center cohort of neurosurgical patients. Methods: Functional mapping with monopulse and repetitive nTMS was performed in 733 patients. In this cohort, 57% of patients had left-sided tumors, 50% had frontal tumors, and 50% had seizures secondary to the lesion. Side effects and pain intensity related to the procedure were documented. Results: Patients undergoing monopulse stimulation underwent an average of 490 pulses while those undergoing repetitive stimulation received an average of 2268 pulses. During monopulse stimulation, 5.1% reported discomfort (VAS 1-3), and 0.4% reported pain (VAS > 3). During repetitive stimulation, 23.4% reported discomfort and 69.5% reported pain. No seizures or other adverse events were observed. Conclusions: nTMS is safe and well-tolerated in neurosurgical patients. Clinicians should consider expanding nTMS to patients with frequent seizures, but more evaluation is necessary to evaluate this risk fully. Significance: nTMS is safe and well-tolerated, even in neurosurgical patients with persistent occasional seizure secondary to a lesion. It should be considered in any patient with a lesion in a presumed perieloquent or eloquent brain region. (c) 2015 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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