Comparing navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation mapping and “gold standard” direct cortical stimulation mapping in neurosurgery: a systematic review

The objective of this systematic review is to create an overview of the literature on the comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) as a mapping tool to the current gold standard, which is (intraoperative) direct cortical stimulation (DCS) mapping. A search in the databases of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNeurosurgical review Vol. 44; no. 4; pp. 1903 - 1920
Main Authors Jeltema, Hanne-Rinck, Ohlerth, Ann-Katrin, de Wit, Aranka, Wagemakers, Michiel, Rofes, Adrià, Bastiaanse, Roelien, Drost, Gea
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.08.2021
Subjects
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neurosurgery
Review
Mapping
Direct cortical stimulation
Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation
DCS
nTMS
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The objective of this systematic review is to create an overview of the literature on the comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) as a mapping tool to the current gold standard, which is (intraoperative) direct cortical stimulation (DCS) mapping. A search in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations were used. Thirty-five publications were included in the review, describing a total of 552 patients. All studies concerned either mapping of motor or language function. No comparative data for nTMS and DCS for other neurological functions were found. For motor mapping, the distances between the cortical representation of the different muscle groups identified by nTMS and DCS varied between 2 and 16 mm. Regarding mapping of language function, solely an object naming task was performed in the comparative studies on nTMS and DCS. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 10 to 100% and 13.3–98%, respectively, when nTMS language mapping was compared with DCS mapping. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) ranged from 17 to 75% and 57–100% respectively. The available evidence for nTMS as a mapping modality for motor and language function is discussed.
Bibliography:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-4
ObjectType-Undefined-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-2
ObjectType-Article-3
ISSN:0344-5607
1437-2320
DOI:10.1007/s10143-020-01397-x