====== Insular Glioma Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis ====== {{rss>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/rss/search/1rYqyBTl7b-QGg_m2Xs0Qacv4RZEs7GV_OSr95F4t2usIDa19i/?limit=15&utm_campaign=pubmed-2&fc=20250605113229}} A [[Systematic Review]] and [[Meta-analysis]] of Matthias Simon et al., estimated rates of motor and speech deficits epilepsy control, KPI, and functional outcomes, surgical approaches and intraoperative strategies, gaps and open research questions ===== ๐Ÿ“Š Methodology ===== * [[Literature search]] and [[inclusion criteria]] were clearly defined. * [[Pooled data]] using a **random-effects model**. * [[PRISMA]] flowchart included in the full text. **Strengths**: * Solid meta-analytic approach * Wide timespan and adequate [[sample size]] **Limitations**: * No formal risk-of-bias assessment reported * Lack of subgroup analyses by tumor grade or patient characteristics ---- ===== ๐Ÿ“ˆ Main Results ===== * **Motor deficits**: 6.8% * **Speech deficits**: 3.6% * **Postoperative epilepsy control**: 79.6% * **KPI โ‰ฅ 80**: 83.5% **Technical Insights**: * **Awake surgery**: Slightly better functional outcome, but possibly less extent of resection * **Transcortical approach**: Fewer motor deficits than transsylvian **Limitations**: * Pooled results do not reflect institutional variability * Lack of detail on long-term seizure outcome (e.g., Engel class) ---- ===== ๐Ÿงช Discussion and Interpretation ===== * Risks and complication rates are comparable to other neuro-oncological procedures. * Mapping and monitoring are **recommended**, ideally in experienced hands. **Criticisms**: * Underrepresents the steep [[insular glioma surgery learning curve]] and required surgical [[expertise]] * No GRADE assessment of evidence * Brief treatment of **insular glioblastomas** ---- ===== โ— Literature Gaps Identified ===== * Absence of standardized functional outcome reporting * Poorly defined classification systems (Yasargil vs. Berger-Sanai vs. Duffau) * Limited evidence on high-grade (GBM) surgery in insula ---- ===== ๐Ÿ“Œ Final Assessment ===== ^ Category ^ Assessment ^ | **Study Type** | Systematic Review + Meta-analysis | | **Methodological Rigor** | High (PRISMA, random-effects model) | | **Heterogeneity Handling** | Moderate (no deep stratification) | | **Clinical Applicability** | High for experienced centers | | **Addresses Gaps?** | Partially | | **Overall Value** | **** (4/5) | ---- ===== ๐Ÿ“ Recommendations ===== * Highly valuable reference for experienced neuro-oncology teams. * Not generalizable to centers with limited awake surgery capacity. * Future work should focus on: * Standardized outcomes * Prospective multicenter registries * Better classification of insular gliomas and their growth patterns ((Simon M, Hagemann A, Gajadin S, Signorelli F, Vincent AJPE; EANS Neuro-oncology Section. Surgical treatment for insular gliomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis on behalf of the EANS neuro-oncology section. Brain Spine. 2024 May 15;4:102828. doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2024.102828. PMID: 38859917; PMCID: PMC11163152.))