Minimally Invasive Surgical Outcomes for Deep-Seated Brain Lesions Treated with Different Tubular Retraction Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery using tubular retractors was developed to minimize injury of surrounding brain during the removal of deep-seated lesions. No evidence supports the superiority of any available tubular retraction system in the treatment of these lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes and complications after the resection of deep-seated lesions with tubular retractors and among available systems. METHODS: A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify studies in which tubular retractors were used to resect deep-seated brain lesions in patients ≥18 years old. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 687 articles. Thirteen articles complying with inclusion criteria and quality assessment were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 309 patients operated on between 2008 and 2018 were evaluated. The most common lesions were gliomas (n = 127), followed by metastases (n = 101) and meningiomas (n = 19). Four different tubular retractors were used: modified retractors (n = 121, 39.1%); METRx (n = 60, 19.4%); BrainPath (n = 92, 29.7%); and ViewSite Brain Access System (n = 36,11.7%). Estimated gross total resection rate was 75% (95% confidence interval, 69%-80%; I2 = 9%), whereas the estimated complication rate was 9% (95% confidence interval: 6%-14%; I2 = 0%). None of the different brain retraction systems was found to be superior regarding extent of resection or complications on multiple comparisons (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tubular retractors represent a promising tool to achieve maximum safe resection of deep-seated brain lesions. However, there does not seem to be a statistically significant difference in extent of resection or complication rates among tubular retraction systems.

Awake vs. asleep motor mapping for glioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative stimulation (IS) mapping has become the preferred standard treatment for eloquent tumors as it permits a more accurate identification of functional areas, allowing surgeons to achieve higher extents of resection (EOR) and decrease postoperative morbidity. For lesions adjacent to the perirolandic area and descending motor tracts, mapping can be done with both awake craniotomy (AC) and under general anesthesia (GA). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine which anesthetic protocol-AC vs. GA-provides better patient outcomes by comparing EOR and postoperative morbidity for surgeries using IS mapping in gliomas located near or in motor areas of the brain. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out to identify relevant studies from 1983 to 2019. Seven databases were screened. A total of 2351 glioma patients from 17 studies were analyzed. RESULTS: A random-effects meta-analysis revealed a trend towards a higher mean EOR in AC [90.1% (95% C.I. 85.8-93.8)] than with GA [81.7% (95% C.I. 72.4-89.7)] (p = 0.06). Neurological deficits were divided by timing and severity for analysis. There was no significant difference in early neurological deficits [20.9% (95% C.I. 4.1-45.0) vs. 25.4% (95% C.I. 13.6-39.2)] (p = 0.74), late neurological deficits [17.1% (95% C.I. 0.0-50.0) vs. 3.8% (95% C.I. 1.1-7.6)] (p = 0.06), or in non-severe [28.4% (95% C.I. 0.0-88.5) vs. 20.1% (95% C.I. 7.1-32.2)] (p = 0.72), and severe morbidity [2.6% (95% C.I. 0.0-15.5) vs. 4.5% (95% C.I. 1.1-9.6)] (p = 0.89) between patients who underwent AC versus GA, respectively. CONCLUSION: Mapping during resection of gliomas located in or near the perirolandic area and descending motor tracts can be safely carried out with both AC and GA.

Trends in glioblastoma: outcomes over time and type of intervention: a systematic evidence based analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite aggressive treatment with chemoradiotherapy and maximum surgical resection, survival in patients with glioblastoma (GBM) remains poor. Ongoing efforts are aiming to prolong the lifespan of these patients; however, disparities exist in reported survival values with lack of clear evidence that objectively examines GBM survival trends. We aim to describe the current status and advances in the survival of patients with GBM, by analyzing median overall survival through time and between treatment modalities. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify articles of newly diagnosed glioblastoma from 1978 to 2018. Full-text glioblastoma papers with human subjects, ≥ 18 years old, and n ≥ 25, were included for evaluation. RESULTS: The central tendency of median overall survival (MOS) was 13.5 months (2.3-29.6) and cumulative 5-year survival was 5.8% (0.01%-29.1%), with a significant difference in survival between studies that predate versus postdate the implementation of temozolomide and radiation, [12.5 (2.3-28) vs 15.6 (3.8-29.6) months, P < 0.001]. In clinical trials, bevacizumab [18.2 (10.6-23.0) months], tumor treating fields (TTF) [20.7 (20.5-20.9) months], and vaccines [19.2 (15.3-26.0) months] reported the highest central measure of median survival. CONCLUSION: Coadministration with radiotherapy and temozolomide provided a statistically significant increase in survival for patients suffering from glioblastoma. However, the natural history for GBM remains poor. Therapies including TTF pooled values of MOS and provide means of prolonging the survival of GBM patients.