Bu · Neurosurgical review 2021 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=10 studies (833 patients)

Glioma surgery with awake language mapping versus generalized anesthesia: a systematic review.

Cited 70 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic review and meta-analysis including non-randomized controlled studies

PubMed 33089447 · doi:10.1007/s10143-020-01418-9 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and grey literature through December 2019. Randomized and non-randomized controlled studies comparing awake craniotomy versus general anesthesia during glioma resection and reporting language and neurological outcomes were included.

What was found

Ten studies with 833 patients were included. Awake craniotomy without electrical stimulation showed no significant differences in language and neurological outcomes compared with general anesthesia. Awake craniotomy with electrical stimulation was associated with lower risk of late (>= 3 months) language deficits (pooled RR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.96) and late neurological deficits (pooled RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.79) versus general anesthesia. Awake craniotomy with electrical stimulation was also associated with better extent of resection (pooled RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92) and shorter hospital stay (pooled weighted mean difference = -1.14, 95% CI -1.80 to -0.48).

Why it matters

This review shows that awake craniotomy improves neurological outcomes and extent of resection over general anesthesia specifically when combined with electrical stimulation mapping.

Limits

The review included non-randomized controlled studies, introducing potential confounding by indication and surgeon selection. Total sample size is relatively small (833 patients across 10 studies), and specific tumor grades, baseline patient deficits, and survival data are not detailed in the abstract.

Cited by