Evidence Hub

Surgical identification of brain tumour margins through impedance monitoring and electrocorticography and the potential for their combined use: A systematic review

A. Georgiannakis, Christopher A. R. Chapman, Dimitrios Paraskevopoulos

Neurosurgical review, 2024

286 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Primary central nervous system tumours have poor survival outcomes. Surgery, the first-line treatment, presents technical limitations, such as visualising the whole tumour border. Intracranial impedance monitoring and electrocorticography techniques provide insights into the local field potential characteristics, resistance and capacitance properties of brain tissue. We hypothesised that measurements obtained by either modality can distinguish between tumour and healthy brain tissue intraoperatively. A “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. Studies on electrocorticography and impedance monitoring in patients with brain tumours were included. Data on patient demographics, technical details, obtained results and safety were extracted and analysed in Excel. Eighteen studies involving 286 patients in total were identified. Ten impedance studies showed that brain tumour tissue has significantly different values than healthy tissue, while its resistivity varies, being either higher or lower. Eight electrocorticography studies indicated increased high gamma power and altered connectivity in tumour tissue. No studies integrated impedance monitoring and electrocorticography in one device. Impedance and electrocorticography measurements have the potential of differentiating between tumour and unaffected issues intra-operatively. Larger studies…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 286 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free