Impact of combined use of intraoperative MRI and awake microsurgical resection on patients with gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Microsurgical resection of primary brain tumors located within or near eloquent areas is challenging. Primary aim is to preserve neurological function, while maximizing the extent of resection (EOR), to optimize long-term neurooncological outcomes and quality of life. Here, we review the combined integration of awake craniotomy and intraoperative MRI (IoMRI) for primary brain tumors, due to their multiple challenges. A systematic review of the literature was performed, in accordance with the Prisma guidelines. Were included 13 series and a total number of 527 patients, who underwent 541 surgeries. We paid particular attention to operative time, rate of intraoperative seizures, rate of initial complete resection at the time of first IoMRI, the final complete gross total resection (GTR, complete radiological resection rates), and the immediate and definitive postoperative neurological complications. The mean duration of surgery was 6.3 h (median 7.05, range 3.8-7.9). The intraoperative seizure rate was 3.7% (range 1.4-6; I2 = 0%, P heterogeneity = 0.569, standard error = 0.012, p = 0.002). The intraoperative complete resection rate at the time of first IoMRI was 35.2% (range 25.7-44.7; I2 = 66.73%, P heterogeneity = 0.004, standard error = 0.048, p 2 = 8.49%, P heterogeneity = 0.364, standard error = 0.032, p 2 = 60.19%, P heterogeneity = 0.01, standard error = 0.045, p 2 = 92.62%, P heterogeneity 2 = 38.52%, P heterogeneity = 0.123, standard error = 0.014, p = 0.004). Combined use of awake craniotomy and IoMRI can help in maximizing brain tumor resection in selected patients. The technical obstacles to doing so are not severe and can be managed by experienced neurosurgery and anesthesiology teams. The benefits of bringing these technologies to bear on patients with brain tumors in or near language areas are obvious. The lack of equipoise on this topic by experienced practitioners will make it difficult to do a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. In the opinion of the authors, such a trial would be unnecessary and would deprive some patients of the benefits of the best available methods for their tumor resections