Feasibility of awake craniotomy in the pediatric population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Awake craniotomy with direct cortical stimulation and mapping is the gold standard for resection of lesions near eloquent brain areas, as it can maximize the extent of resection while minimizing the risk of neurological damage. In contrast to the adult population, only small series of awake craniotomies have been reported in children. AIMS: The aim of our study is to establish the feasibility of awake craniotomy in the pediatric population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study of children undergoing a supratentorial awake craniotomy between January 2009 and April 2019 in a pediatric tertiary care center. Our primary outcome was feasibility of awake craniotomy, defined as the ability to complete the procedure without conversion to general anesthesia. Our secondary outcomes were the incidence of serious intraoperative complications and the mapping completion rate. RESULTS: Thirty procedures were performed in 28 children: 12 females and 16 males. The median age was 14 years (range 7-17). The primary diagnosis was tumor (83.3%), epilepsy (13.3%), and arterio-venous malformation (3.3%). The anesthetic techniques were asleep-awake-asleep (96.7%) and conscious sedation (3.3%), all cases supplemented with scalp block and pin-site infiltration. Awake craniotomy was feasible in 29 cases (96.7%), one patient converted to general anesthesia due to agitation. Serious complications occurred in six patients: agitation (6.7%), seizures (3.3%), increased intracranial pressure (3.3%), respiratory depression (3.3%), and bradycardia (3.3%). All complications were quickly resolved and without major consequences. Cortical mapping was completed in 96.6% cases. New neurological deficits occurred in six patients (20%)-moderate in one case and mild in 5-being all absent at 6 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Awake craniotomy with intraoperative mapping can be successfully performed in children. Adequate patient selection and close cooperation between neurosurgeons, anesthesiologists, neuropsychologists, and neurophysiologists is paramount. Further studies are needed to determine the best anesthetic technique in this population group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".