•Stimulation of human parietal lobe interfere with hand-manipulation task execution.•Parietal stimulation evoked complete or partial hand-muscle interference patterns.•Hand-muscles effects evoked by ...parietal stimulation are anatomically segregated
In primates, the parietal cortex plays a crucial role in hand-object manipulation. However, its involvement in object manipulation and related hand-muscle control has never been investigated in humans with a direct and focal electrophysiological approach. To this aim, during awake surgery for brain tumors, we studied the impact of direct electrical stimulation (DES) of parietal lobe on hand-muscles during a hand-manipulation task (HMt). Results showed that DES applied to fingers-representation of postcentral gyrus (PCG) and anterior intraparietal cortex (aIPC) impaired HMt execution. Different types of EMG-interference patterns were observed ranging from a partial (task-clumsy) or complete (task-arrest) impairment of muscles activity. Within PCG both patterns coexisted along a medio (arrest)–lateral (clumsy) distribution, while aIPC hosted preferentially the task-arrest. The interference patterns were mainly associated to muscles suppression, more pronounced in aIPC with respect to PCG. Moreover, within PCG were observed patterns with different level of muscle recruitment, not reported in the aIPC. Overall, EMG-interference patterns and their probabilistic distribution suggested the presence of different functional parietal sectors, possibly playing different roles in hand-muscle control during manipulation. We hypothesized that task-arrest, compared to clumsy patterns, might suggest the existence of parietal sectors more closely implicated in shaping the motor output.
Objective
Safe resection of gliomas involving motor pathways in asleep-anesthesia requires the combination of brain mapping, to identify and spare essential motor sites, and continuous monitoring of ...motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), to detect possible vascular damage to the corticospinal tract (CST). MEP monitoring, according to intraoperative neurophysiology societies, is generally recommended by transcranial electrodes (TES), and no clear indications of direct cortical stimulation (DCS) or the preferential use of one of the two techniques based on the clinical context is available. The main aim of the study was to identify the best technique(s) based on different clinical conditions, evaluating the efficacy and prognostic value of both methodologies.
Methods
A retrospective series of patients with tumors involving the motor pathways who underwent surgical resection with the aid of brain mapping and combined MEP monitoring
via
TES and DCS was evaluated. Irreversible MEP amplitude reduction (>50% compared to baseline) was used as an intraoperative warning and correlated to the postoperative motor outcome. Selectivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were computed for both techniques.
Results
Four hundred sixty-two patients were retrospectively analyzed, and only 1.9% showed a long-term motor impairment. Both TES and DCS obtained high specificity and NPV for the acute and 1-month motor deficit. Sensitivity was rather low for the acute deficit but excellent considering the 1-month follow-up for both techniques. DCS was extremely reliable in predicting a postoperative motor decline (PPV of 100% and 90% for acute and long-term deficit, respectively). Conversely, TES produced a high number of false-positive results, especially for long-term deficits (65, 87.8% of all warnings) therefore obtaining poor PPV values (18% and 12% for acute and 1-month deficits, respectively). TES false-positive results were significantly associated with parietal tumors and lateral patient positioning.
Conclusions
Data support the use of mapping and combined monitoring
via
TES and DCS. The sole TES monitoring is reliable in most procedures but not in parietal tumors or those requiring lateral positioning. Although no indications are available in international guidelines, DCS should be recommended, particularly for cases approached by a lateral position.
Primary-Motor-Cortex (M1) hosts two functional components, at its posterior and anterior borders, being the first faster and more excitable. We developed a mapping-technique for M1 components ...identification and determined their functional cortical-subcortical architecture in M1 gliomas and the impact of their identification on tumor resection and motor performance. A novel advanced mapping technique was used in 102 tumors within M1 or CorticoSpinal-Tract to identify M1-two components. High-Frequency-stimulation (2–5 pulses) with an on-line qualitative and quantitative analysis of motor responses was used; the two components’ cortical/subcortical spatial distribution correlated to clinical, tumor-related factor and patients’ motor outcome; a cohort treated with standard-mapping was used for comparison. The two functional components were always identified on-line; in tumors not affecting M1, its functional segregation was preserved. In M1 tumors, two architectures, both preserving the two components, were disclosed: in 50%, a normal cortical/subcortical architecture emerged, while 50% revealed a distorted architecture with loss of anatomical reference and somatotopy, not associated with tumor histo-molecular features or volume, but with a previous treatment. Motor performance was maintained, suggesting functional compensation. By preserving the highest and resecting the lowest excitability component, the complete-resection increased with low morbidity. The real-time identification of two M1 functional components and the preservation of the highest excitability one increases safe resection, revealing M1 plasticity potentials.
PDF
