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

Awake craniotomy with language mapping is being increasingly applied to avoid postoperative language dysfunctions worldwide. However, the effectiveness and reliability of this technique remain unclear due to the paucity of studies comparing the awake craniotomy with general anesthesia. To determine the benefit of awake craniotomy for language, motor, and neurological functions, as well as other clinical outcomes, we searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to December 2019. Gray literatures were also searched. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled studies comparing awake craniotomy versus general anesthetic resection and reporting the language and neurological outcomes. Ten studies with 833 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) suggested no significant differences in language and neurological outcomes between general anesthesia group and awake craniotomy group without electrical stimulation. Awake craniotomy with electrical stimulation, however, was associated with improved late language and neurological outcomes (≥ 3 months) versus general anesthesia with pooled RR of 0.44 (95% CI = 0.20–0.96) and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.30–0.79), respectively. Awake craniotomy with electrical stimulation was also associated with better extent of resection with the pooled RR of 0.81 (95%CI = 0.71–0.92) and shorter hospital stay duration with the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of − 1.14 (95%CI = − 1.80 to − 0.48). This meta-analysis suggested that the application of awake craniotomy with electrical stimulation during glioma resection is associated with lower risks of long-term neurological and language deficits and higher extent of tumor resection, as well as shorter hospital stay duration.