4.5 Review

Corticocortical Evoked Potentials in Eloquent Brain Tumor Surgery. A Systematic Review

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 181, 期 -, 页码 38-51

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/J.WNEU.2023.10.028

关键词

Brain surgery; Corticocortical evoked potentials; Intraoperative monitoring; Language network; Oncofunctional balance; CCEPs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Corticocortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) have emerged as a valuable intraoperative monitoring technique in eloquent brain tumor surgery, aiding in preserving critical functional areas. Current research shows the potential of CCEPs in guiding surgical decision making, reducing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits, and mapping functional connectivity, but further research and standardization are needed.
Eloquent brain tumor surgery involves the delicate task of resecting tumors located in regions of the brain responsible for critical functions, such as language, motor control, and sensory perception. Preserving these functions is of paramount importance to maintain the patient's quality of life. Corticocortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) have emerged as a valuable intraoperative monitoring technique that aids in identifying and preserving eloquent cortical areas during surgery. This systematic review aimed to assess the utility of CCEPs in eloquent brain tumor surgery and determine their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed/Medline and Scopus. The search strategy identified 11 relevant articles for detailed analysis. The findings of the included studies consistently demonstrated the potential of CCEPs in guiding surgical decision making, minimizing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits, and mapping functional connectivity during surgery. However, further research and standardization are needed to fully establish the clinical benefits and refine the implementation of CCEPs in routine neurosurgical practice.

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

4.5
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