@article {4343, title = {Potential differences between monolingual and bilingual patients in approach and outcome after awake brain surgery.}, journal = {J Neurooncol}, volume = {148}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, pages = {587-598}, abstract = {

INTRODUCTION: 20.8\% of the United States population and 67\% of the European population speak two or more languages. Intraoperative different languages, mapping, and localization are crucial. This investigation aims to address three questions between BL and ML patients: (1) Are there differences in complications (i.e. seizures) and DECS techniques during intra-operative brain mapping? (2) Is EOR different? and (3) Are there differences in the recovery pattern post-surgery?

METHODS: Data from 56 patients that underwent left-sided awake craniotomy for tumors infiltrating possible dominant hemisphere language areas from September 2016 to June 2019 were identified and analyzed in this study; 14 BL and 42 ML control patients. Patient demographics, education level, and the age of language acquisition were documented and evaluated. fMRI was performed on all participants.

RESULTS: 0 (0\%) BL and 3 (7\%) ML experienced intraoperative seizures (P = 0.73). BL patients received a higher direct DECS current in comparison to the ML patients (average = 4.7, 3.8, respectively, P = 0.03). The extent of resection was higher in ML patients in comparison to the BL patients (80.9 vs. 64.8, respectively, P = 0.04). The post-operative KPS scores were higher in BL patients in comparison to ML patients (84.3, 77.4, respectively, P = 0.03). BL showed lower drop in post-operative KPS in comparison to ML patients (- 4.3, - 8.7, respectively, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION: We show that BL patients have a lower incidence of intra-operative seizures, lower EOR, higher post-operative KPS and tolerate higher DECS current, in comparison to ML patients.

}, keywords = {Brain Mapping, Brain Neoplasms, Craniotomy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glioma, Humans, Incidence, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Intraoperative, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Seizures, United States, Wakefulness}, issn = {1573-7373}, doi = {10.1007/s11060-020-03554-0}, author = {ReFaey, Karim and Tripathi, Shashwat and Bhargav, Adip G and Grewal, Sanjeet S and Middlebrooks, Erik H and Sabsevitz, David S and Jentoft, Mark and Peter Brunner and Wu, Adela and Tatum, William O and Ritaccio, Anthony and Chaichana, Kaisorn L and Quinones-Hinojosa, Alfredo} } @article {2201, title = {Proceedings of the first international workshop on advances in electrocorticography.}, journal = {Epilepsy Behav}, volume = {19}, year = {2010}, month = {10/2010}, pages = {204-15}, abstract = {

In October 2009, a group of neurologists, neurosurgeons, computational neuroscientists, and engineers congregated to present novel developments transforming human electrocorticography (ECoG) beyond its established relevance in clinical epileptology. The contents of the proceedings advanced the role of ECoG in seizure detection and prediction, neurobehavioral research, functional mapping, and brain-computer interface technology. The meeting established the foundation for future work on the methodology and application of surface brain recordings.

}, keywords = {Brain, Brain Mapping, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electroencephalography, Humans, International Cooperation, Seizures, Signal Detection, Psychological}, issn = {1525-5069}, doi = {10.1016/j.yebeh.2010.08.028}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889384}, author = {A L Ritaccio and Peter Brunner and Cervenka, Mackenzie C and Nathan E. Crone and Guger, C and Leuthardt, E C and Oostenveld, Robert and Stacey, William and Gerwin Schalk} }