Reliability of Intraoperative Monitoring in Patients with a Preexisting Motor Deficit: Case Report and Literature Review

Abstract

Background The use of intraoperative monitoring (IOM) in glioma surgery is a widely adopted and clinically validated adjunct to define safe zones of resection for the neurosurgeon. However, the role of IOM in cases of a significant preexisting motor deficit is questionable.

Case Description We describe a case of a 25-year-old with a recurrent presentation of a left paracentral glioblastoma, admitted with intratumoral hemorrhage and subsequent acute severe right-sided weakness. The patient underwent a redo left parietal craniotomy and 5-aminolevulinic acid–guided resection with IOM. The severity of the weakness was not reflected by the pre- and intraoperative cortical motor evoked potentials (MEPs) that were reassuring. The patient's hemiparesis recovered to full power postoperatively.

Conclusions Preoperative weakness is traditionally accepted as a relative contraindication to IOM and therefore its usefulness is questioned in this context. Our case challenges this assumption. We present the clinical course, review the cranial and spinal literature including the reliability of IOM in cases of preoperative motor deficit, and discuss the need for tailor-made IOM strategies.

Keywords

preoperative motor deficit - intraoperative neuro-monitoring - monopolar stimulation - glioma - surgery

Patient Consent

The patient consented to the release of the case report for submission to the journal.

Publication History

Received: 27 February 2019

Accepted: 23 May 2019

Article published online:
28 March 2020

• References

• 1 Bello L, Riva M, Fava E. et al. Tailoring neurophysiological strategies with clinical context enhances resection and safety and expands indications in gliomas involving motor pathways. Neuro Oncol 2014; 16 (08) 1110-1128
• 2 MacDonald DB. Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 19 (05) 416-429
• 3 Zhou HH, Kelly PJ. Transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring for brain tumor resection. Neurosurgery 2001; 48 (05) 1075-1080 ; discussion 1080–1081
• 4 Neuloh G, Pechstein U, Schramm J. Motor tract monitoring during insular glioma surgery. J Neurosurg 2007; 106 (04) 582-592
• 5 Schucht P, Seidel K, Jilch A, Beck J, Raabe A. A review of monopolar motor mapping and a comprehensive guide to continuous dynamic motor mapping for resection of motor eloquent brain tumors. Neurochirurgie 2017; 63 (03) 175-180
• 6 Chen X, Sterio D, Ming X. et al. Success rate of motor evoked potentials for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: effects of age, lesion location, and preoperative neurologic deficits. J Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 24 (03) 281-285
• 7 Lee JM, Kim DH, Kim HS, Choi BK, Han IH. The applicability of intraoperative neuromonitoring in patients with preoperative motor weakness during spine surgery. Korean J Spine 2016; 13 (01) 9-12
• 8 Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ. , et al; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Brain Tumor and Radiotherapy Groups; National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (10) 987-996
• 9 Kang H, Gwak HS, Shin SH. et al. Feasibility and predictability of intraoperative monitoring in patients with intradural extramedullary and epidural metastatic spinal tumors. J Spine 2016; 5: 334
• 10 Krieg SM, Schäffner M, Shiban E. et al. Reliability of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using motor evoked potentials during resection of metastases in motor-eloquent brain regions: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2013; 118 (06) 1269-1278