ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Motor mapping to enable resections of peri-rolandic diffuse gliomas.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative motor mapping is essential for maximum safe resection of peri-Rolandic gliomas. While both awake and asleep techniques have demonstrated efficacy in preserving neurological function, comparative outcomes across WHO 2021 molecular tumor subtypes remain poorly defined. We compare outcomes between these mapping modalities in glioblastoma (GBM) and IDH-mutant gliomas.
methodsA 130-patient cohort undergoing peri-Rolandic glioma resection with intraoperative motor mapping at a single institution was analyzed. Patients were stratified by mapping modality (awake n = 54, asleep n = 76) and tumor subtype (WHO 2021). Within the asleep cohort, handheld probe (HHP-DCS, n = 61) and subdural electrode direct cortical stimulation (SDE-DCS, n = 12) were compared. The primary outcome was new or worsening neurological deficits at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, and survival in GBM patients.
resultsThree-month deficit rates were comparable between awake and asleep mapping (5.6% vs. 5.3%, p = 1.000). In GBM patients, pre- and postoperative KPS were significantly lower in the asleep group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002), though delta KPS and 3-month deficit rates did not differ. No deficits occurred in either group among IDH-mutant gliomas. Progression-free and overall survival were comparable between mapping modalities in GBM. HHP-DCS and SDE-DCS produced similar 3-month deficit rates (3.3% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.124).
conclusionAwake and asleep motor mapping were associated with comparable neurological outcomes across glioma subtypes, supporting asleep mapping as a reasonable alternative when awake craniotomy is not feasible, though these retrospective data do not establish statistical equivalence. HHP-DCS and SDE-DCS appear comparable in safety. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.