Anatomical and Temporal Blind Spots Explain the High False-Negative Rate of Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring in Glioma Surgery: A Single-Center Analysis of 106 Consecutive Patients.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42492850.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2026.125204.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Intraoperative motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring is standard during glioma surgery, yet its diagnostic performance in cohorts enriched for deep-seated tumors remains poorly characterized. We retrospectively analyzed 106 consecutive patients undergoing MEP-monitored glioma resection. False-negative cases were systematically reviewed to classify monitoring failure as anatomical blind spots (basal ganglia injury, supplementary motor area (SMA)/parietal involvement, thalamic injury) or temporal blind spots (delayed hemorrhage). Preoperative MRI variables were compared between false-negative and true-positive cases. Twenty-five patients (24%) developed new-onset motor deficits at the time of hospital discharge. MEP sensitivity was 28% (95% CI: 12-49%), and specificity was 95% (95% CI: 88-99%), with a false-negative rate of 72% (18/25). Systematic review attributed 89% of false-negative events to anatomical blind spots: basal ganglia injury (n=9), SMA/parietal involvement (n=4), and thalamic injury (n=3); 2 cases (11%) resulted from delayed postoperative hemorrhage. No preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) variable significantly differentiated false-negative from true-positive cases (all p>0.05). These metrics apply to a selectively monitored cohort enriched for deep-seated lesions and should not be generalized to unselected glioma populations. The low sensitivity most plausibly reflects the high proportion of basal ganglia-involving tumors rather than undetected corticospinal tract injury, though this remains inferential without tractographic confirmation. Patients with deep-seated tumors should be counseled that stable MEP does not reliably predict the absence of motor deterioration at discharge from non-corticospinal structures. These findings quantify a specific monitoring gap and underscore the need for supplementary strategies targeting non-corticospinal motor circuits.