<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ReFaey, Karim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tripathi, Shashwat</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bhargav, Adip G</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Grewal, Sanjeet S</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Middlebrooks, Erik H</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sabsevitz, David S</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jentoft, Mark</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peter Brunner</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wu, Adela</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tatum, William O</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ritaccio, Anthony</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chaichana, Kaisorn L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quinones-Hinojosa, Alfredo</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Potential differences between monolingual and bilingual patients in approach and outcome after awake brain surgery.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Neurooncol</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J Neurooncol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain Mapping</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain Neoplasms</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Craniotomy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Follow-Up Studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Glioma</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Incidence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Language</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Middle Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Monitoring, Intraoperative</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prognosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Retrospective Studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Seizures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United States</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wakefulness</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">07/2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">148</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">587-598</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;INTRODUCTION: &lt;/b&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;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).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSION: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A L Ritaccio</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Boatman-Reich, Dana</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peter Brunner</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cervenka, Mackenzie C</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cole, Andrew J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nathan E. Crone</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Duckrow, Robert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Korzeniewska, Anna</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Litt, Brian</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Miller, John W</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Moran, D</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Parvizi, Josef</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Viventi, Jonathan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Williams, Justin C</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gerwin Schalk</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Advances in Electrocorticography.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Epilepsy Behav</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Epilepsy Behav</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain Mapping</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brain Waves</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Electroencephalography</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Epilepsy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">United States</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">User-Computer Interface</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12/2011</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036287</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">641-50</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;&quot;&gt;The Second International Workshop on Advances in Electrocorticography (ECoG) was convened in San Diego, CA, USA, on November 11-12, 2010. Between this meeting and the inaugural 2009 event, a much clearer picture has been emerging of cortical ECoG physiology and its relationship to local field potentials and single-cell recordings. Innovations in material engineering are advancing the goal of a stable long-term recording interface. Continued evolution of ECoG-driven brain-computer interface technology is determining innovation in neuroprosthetics. Improvements in instrumentation and statistical methodologies continue to elucidate ECoG correlates of normal human function as well as the ictal state. This proceedings document summarizes the current status of this rapidly evolving field.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue></record></records></xml>