@article {4343, title = {Potential differences between monolingual and bilingual patients in approach and outcome after awake brain surgery.}, journal = {J Neurooncol}, volume = {148}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, pages = {587-598}, abstract = {

INTRODUCTION: 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?

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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).

CONCLUSION: 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.

}, keywords = {Brain Mapping, Brain Neoplasms, Craniotomy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glioma, Humans, Incidence, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Intraoperative, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Seizures, United States, Wakefulness}, issn = {1573-7373}, doi = {10.1007/s11060-020-03554-0}, author = {ReFaey, Karim and Tripathi, Shashwat and Bhargav, Adip G and Grewal, Sanjeet S and Middlebrooks, Erik H and Sabsevitz, David S and Jentoft, Mark and Peter Brunner and Wu, Adela and Tatum, William O and Ritaccio, Anthony and Chaichana, Kaisorn L and Quinones-Hinojosa, Alfredo} } @article {2208, title = {Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Advances in Electrocorticography.}, journal = {Epilepsy Behav}, volume = {22}, year = {2011}, month = {12/2011}, pages = {641-50}, abstract = {

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.

}, keywords = {Brain, Brain Mapping, Brain Waves, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electroencephalography, Epilepsy, Humans, United States, User-Computer Interface}, issn = {1525-5069}, doi = {10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.09.028}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036287}, author = {A L Ritaccio and Boatman-Reich, Dana and Peter Brunner and Cervenka, Mackenzie C and Cole, Andrew J and Nathan E. Crone and Duckrow, Robert and Korzeniewska, Anna and Litt, Brian and Miller, John W and Moran, D and Parvizi, Josef and Viventi, Jonathan and Williams, Justin C and Gerwin Schalk} }