Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2023 Nov 1;46(1):290. doi: 10.1007/s10143-023-02187-x

Awake craniotomy during pregnancy: A systematic review of the published literature

Mohammad Mofatteh 1,2,, Mohammad Sadegh Mashayekhi 3,4,5, Saman Arfaie 6,7,8, Hongquan Wei 9, Arshia Kazerouni 10, Georgios P Skandalakis 11, Ahmad Pour-Rashidi 12, Abed Baiad 13, Lior Elkaim 14, Jack Lam 9, Paolo Palmisciano 15, Xiumei Su 16, Xuxing Liao 17,18, Sunit Das 19, Keyoumars Ashkan 2,20,21,22,23, Aaron A Cohen-Gadol 24,25,26
PMCID: PMC10620271  PMID: 37910275

Abstract

Neurosurgical pathologies in pregnancy pose significant complications for the patient and fetus, and physiological stressors during anesthesia and surgery may lead to maternal and fetal complications. Awake craniotomy (AC) can preserve neurological functions while reducing exposure to anesthetic medications. We reviewed the literature investigating AC during pregnancy. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from the inception to February 7th, 2023, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Studies in English investigating AC in pregnant patients were included in the final analysis. Nine studies composed of nine pregnant patients and ten fetuses (one twin-gestating patient) were included. Glioma was the most common pathology reported in six (66.7%) patients. The frontal lobe was the most involved region (4 cases, 44.4%), followed by the frontoparietal region (2 cases, 22.2%). The awake-awake-awake approach was the most common protocol in seven (77.8%) studies. The shortest operation time was two hours, whereas the longest one was eight hours and 29 min. The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 13.6 ± 6.5 (2—22) and 19.6 ± 6.9 (9—30) weeks at craniotomy. Seven (77.8%) studies employed intraoperative fetal heart rate monitoring. None of the AC procedures was converted to general anesthesia. Ten healthy babies were delivered from patients who underwent AC. In experienced hands, AC for resection of cranial lesions of eloquent areas in pregnant patients is safe and feasible and does not alter the pregnancy outcome.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10143-023-02187-x.

Keywords: Anesthesia, Awake craniotomy, Fetus, Tumor, Pregnancy, Brain mapping

Introduction

Intracranial pathologies during pregnancy pose a significant challenge to both the mother and fetus [13]. A predominance of central nervous system tumors, including gliomas, is observed in females older than 20 years of age, which coincides with the reproductive fertility and child-bearing period in life [4]. As such, some lesions such as choriocarcinomas, meningiomas, and pituitary adenomas may be specifically linked to pregnancy [2, 5].

With extensive physiological changes occurring during pregnancy, some may alter the growth of already existing intracranial lesions or unmask signs and symptoms of previously unknown ones [6]. Another life-threatening concern is vasogenic cerebral edema secondary to growing intracranial tumors which may lead to a sudden increase in intracranial pressure [7]. For these reasons, neurosurgical interventions are recommended in pregnant patients with malignant tumors regardless of gestational age [8]. Treatments of brain lesions, including chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical resection under general anesthesia can have potentially teratogenic and fatal consequences for the fetus, thereby complicating the obstetric management of pregnant patients [4, 9].

Neurosurgical interventions for intracranial pathologies are well-tolerated by both the mother and the fetus [10]. Most studies have investigated the neurosurgical treatment of pathologies under general anesthesia in pregnancy [1115]. Lesions in eloquent areas require awake craniotomy (AC) for real-time monitoring of neurological functions, including motor, language, and vision [1620]. Recent studies show AC is a safe procedure with fewer post-operative complications such as stress and anxiety for patients [21].

AC results in lower neurological deficits while enhancing the chance of achieving maximal macroscopic resection in different pathologies, including glioblastoma [2224], glioma [23, 2528], meningioma [29, 30], and aneurysms [31]. The extent of tumor resection is correlated significantly with the patient’s survival [32]. In addition, AC avoids medication usage for general anesthesia which may otherwise have teratogenic effects [33, 34]. Furthermore, undergoing neurosurgery is a significant physical and mental undertaking. Experiencing psychological distress, directly or indirectly, during pregnancy, can cause adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth [35]. Complications associated with brain surgery under general anesthesia complicate the health of a childbearing person and fetus [36, 37]. Therefore, maintaining maternal psychological well-being is of paramount importance.

Multiple factors, such as maternal and fetal well-being, patient’s willingness, and available expertise influence the choice between craniotomy under general anesthesia or while awake. Given the benefits of AC, it would be intuitive to assume that AC would be performed more routinely in pregnancy. However, a unified synthesis of the literature on AC for pregnant patients has yet to be performed. This is the first systematic review that fills the gap in the treatment of brain lesions in pregnant people using AC.

Materials and methods

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Articles were eligible for our systematic review if they met the following criteria: (1) original articles (2) English only, (3) articles involving human subjects only, (4) AC operation during any trimester of pregnancy, and (5) sufficient data could be extracted from an available article in databases. The exclusion criteria were defined as (1) studies with mixed reports on pregnant and non-pregnant patients, (2) sufficient data could not be extracted, and (3) AC and other techniques used without individual patient data differentiation.

Information sources and search strategy

This systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [38] to identify published literature on AC during pregnancy, and a separate protocol was not established. We conducted our electronic searches using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases from inception to February 7th, 2023 for relevant articles. The following Boolean terms were used for the search: (“awake craniotomy” OR “awake brain surgery” OR “awake neurosurgery” OR “awake brain mapping” OR “awake tumor resection” OR “craniotomy while awake”). Details of search terms for each database are shown in Supplementary Table 1.

Selection process

At least two authors (M.M., M.S.M., and S.A.) independently screened the titles and abstracts of initial search results. Following the title and abstract screening, relevant papers were selected for full-text screening. In addition, M.M., M.S.M., and S.A. screened for relevant articles via the reference lists of selected articles to ensure additional appropriate articles were not excluded.

Data extraction

At least two authors (M.M., M.S.M., S.A. and A.K.) interchangeably extracted data from each selected paper. All four authors (M.M., M.S.M., S.A. and A.K.) further validated the extracted data independently of the author who initially completed the extraction. The following data of interest were extracted from the final articles: first author, publication year, title, journal, country, study objectives, study period, study design, single/multi-centre, condition treated, anesthesia protocol, primary sedation, and analgesia, mean AC operation time, follow-up period, total patient number, whether AC and GA were compared directly, number of patients, number of fetuses, mean age of patients, pathology, presentation, surgical position, gestational age at diagnosis, gestational age at craniotomy, pregnancy term, delivery method, hospitalization length, AC intraoperative complications, neonatal outcome, lesion hemisphere, lesion location, eloquent area lesion and mapping, intraoperative fetal monitoring, pre-operative localization, AC extent of resection, conversion to GA, pre-operative neurological symptoms, post-operative complications, post-operative neurological deficits resolved, and main outcome reported. Study risk of bias assessment was not used given that no meta-analyses were conducted. All calculations were done on Microsoft Excel (version 2016; Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Independently abstracted data were managed on Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (version 2016; Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA).

Results

Study selection

Our search yielded 12,182 results across three databases: PubMed (n = 3,832), Scopus (n = 4,750), and Web of Science (n = 3,600). Duplicates (n = 6,640) were removed after the search was completed. The remaining studies (n = 5,542) were screened based on their titles and abstracts, and studies not relevant to our systematic review were removed (n = 5,494). Major reasons for exclusion based on the title and abstract screening were classified as studies irrelevant to AC (n = 2,741), studies without pregnant patients (n = 903), animal studies (n = 864), literature reviews, book chapters, abstracts, and commentaries (n = 571), non-English (n = 270), commentaries and letters to editors (n = 145). If more than one reason was applicable for exclusion, only one criterion was recorded. The remaining articles (n = 48) were then fully read for eligibility criteria. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria above and were included in the final review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart demonstrating the search, screen, inclusion, and exclusion process for the current study. AC, awake craniotomy

The articles’ information is summarized in Supplementary Table 2. Of the nine studies included, five (55.6%) were from the USA [3943], followed by Japan [44], Oman [45], Poland [46], and Pakistan [47], with one (11.1%) study each.

Study characteristics

All studies reported one case. Overall, nine patients with ten fetuses (one twin pregnancy reported by Meng et al. [41]) were included (Table 1). Apart from one study (11.1%) which used AC for pseudoaneurysm [42], all other papers (88.9%) treated tumors via AC [3941, 4347]. The awake-awake-awake approach was the most common protocol used in seven studies (77.8%) [4043, 4547]. One study (11.1%) used the asleep-awake-asleep protocol [44], and another (11.1%) did not specify their protocol [39].

Table 1.

An Overview of Studies’ Characteristics and Procedure Details

Study Study design Single/multi center Condition treated Patients number Fetus number AC protocol Primary sedation and analgesic
Abd-Elsayed et al. 2013 [39] Retrospective Single center Tumor 1 1 NS Anesthesia induction and maintenance: propofol/alfentanil (dose NS)
Handlogten et al. 2015 [40] Case study Single center Tumor 1 1 Awake-awake-awake

Local anesthesia: 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine

Sedation: initial infusion of 0.4 to 0.5 μg/kg/h of dexmedetomidine without a loading dose

Intermittent boluses of propofol at 10–30 mg or fentanyl 25 μg administered as needed for stimulating events, such as urinary catheter placement

Meng et al. 2016 [41] Case study Single center Tumor 1 2 Awake-awake-awake

Local anesthesia: 1:1 mixture of 0.5% lidocaine and 0.25% bupivacaine

Conscious sedation: propofol (25—60 mcg/kg/min) and remifentanil (0.04—0.14 mcg/kg/min)

Hedayat et al. 2017 [42] Case study Single center Pseudoaneurysm 1 1 Awake-awake-awake Fentanyl and Diprivan (dose NS)
Kamata et al. 2017 [44] Case study Single center Tumor 1 1 Asleep-awake-asleep

Local anesthesia: 40 ml of 0.3% ropivacaine and 10 ml of 1% lidocaine with 0.01% epinephrine

Induction: fentanyl 125 μg and thiopental 375 mg

Maintenance: sevoflurane and remifentanil at 0.3 μg/kg/min

Conscious sedation: dexmedetomidine started at 1.0 ug/kg/hr and continued at 0.7 μg/kg/hr after 20 min

Surgical site closure: fentanyl 225 μg and droperidol 100 μg

Al Mashani, 2018 [45] Case study Single center Tumor 1 1 Awake-awake-awake

Local anesthesia: 0.25% bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine (1:1 mixture)

Conscious sedation: low-dose propofol (50 mcg/kg/min), remifentanil (0.1 mcg/kg/min), and dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg/min). Propofol was stopped and dexmedetomidine was reduced before neurophysiologic testing (0.3 mcg/kg/min)

Pawlik et al. 2018 [46] Case study Single center Tumor 1 1 Awake-awake-awake

Local anesthesia: 15 ml of 1% ropivacaine and 15 ml of 1.0% lidocaine with 1:40,000 epinephrine

Conscious sedation: dexmedetomidine at 0.4 to 0.7 mcg/kg/hr without a loading dose, and remifentanil of 1–2 ng/ml. Dexmedetomidine infusion was increased to 1.0 mcg/kg/hr and remifentanil to 3–4 ng/ml during mitigating events (such as scalp block infiltration, and head immobilization)

Kumar et al. 2020 [47] Case study Single center Tumor 1 1 Awake-awake-awake NS
Gunasekaran et al. 2022 [43] Case study Single center Tumor 1 1 Awake-awake-awake

Local anesthesia: 2% lidocaine with 1:10,000 epinephrine and 0.5% ropivacaine mixed 1:1

Conscious sedation: remifentanil, dexmedetomidine, and propofol

NS not specified

Medications

As the use of propofol in pregnant patients is prohibited, Kamata et al. [44] used sevoflurane and remifentanil for general anesthesia until the first scan of iMRI, and they subsequently re-induced dexmedetomidine when tumor removal had been accomplished. Also, they used prophylactic antiemetics and antacids to prevent intraoperative vomiting. Similarly, Hedayat and colleagues [42] used dexamethasone and ondansetron to provide antiemetic effects. Furthermore, they used ranitidine and oral sodium citrate to decrease the acidity of gastric contents to avoid aspiration.

The mean age of patients was 29.8 ± 4.5 years old, with the youngest patient being 24 [43], and the oldest, 40 [39] (Table 2). One study (11.1%) did not specify the patient's age [42]. Astrocytoma was the most common pathology reported in three (33.3%) patients. Glioma was the most represented pathology in six (66.7%) patients [3941, 43, 44, 46]. Pseudoaneurysm [42], and meningioma [47] were reported in one study (11.1%) each. One study (11.1%) did not specify the pathology [45]. The shortest operation time was two hours [43], whereas the longest procedure took 8 h and 29 min to complete [40]. However, it is plausible that different studies used various time intervals as operation time; for example, Pawlik et al. [46] stated that the total time spent in the operation theatre was 4 h and 40 min. Four studies (44.4%) did not report their operation time [39, 41, 42, 45]. Lateral/semi-lateral was the common surgical position in four (44.4%) studies [41, 43, 45, 46]. The supine position was employed in two (22.2%) studies [40, 44], and three (33.3%) studies did not specify their surgical position [39, 42, 47].

Table 2.

Patient Characteristics Summary

Study Age (year) Weight and height Pathology Presentation Past medical history Operation time Surgical position Follow-up
Abd-Elsayed et al. 2013 [39] 40 NS Glioma Seizure NS NS NS NS
Handlogten et al. 2015 [40] 27 70 kg, 172 cm Anaplastic oligoastrocytoma (WHO grade III) New onset seizure, mild receptive and expressive aphasia NS 8 h and 29 min Supine with left uterine displacement 30 months
Meng et al. 2016 31 NS Anaplastic astrocytoma (WHO grade III) Word finding difficulty, dysfluency, right upper extremity plegia, and right lower extremity paresis Two general anesthesia tumor debulking during the same pregnancy at 16 weeks and 28 weeks gestation NS Right semilateral NS
Hedayat et al. 2017 [42] NS NS Cortical pseudoaneurysm of the distal right middle cerebral artery under previous craniotomy site Intermittent headaches, dizziness, and tingling of hands Previous craniotomy due to superficially penetrating gunshot wound with complete neurological recovery NS NS NS
Kamata et al. 2017 [44] 30 61.4 kg, 162 cm Anaplastic astrocytoma (WHO grade III) Generalized convulsive seizures that were poorly controlled with anti-convulsive therapy NS 241 min (surgery), 291 min (anesthesia) Supine with a wedge placed under the right buttock to prevent aortocaval compression 17 months
Al Mashani, 2018 [45] 26 NS NS Recurrent seizures for one week NS NS Left lateral position NS
Pawlik et al. 2018 [46] 31 NS Astrocytoma (Grade II/III) Word finding difficulty NS 4 h and 40 min* Semilateral NS
Kumar et al. 2020 [47] 29 53 kg, 153 cm Meningioma Left eye blurred vision Non-significant 4 h NS 1 week
Gunasekaran et al. 2022 [43] 24 NS Giant cell glioblastoma (WHO grade IV) Generalized tonic–clonic seizure, frequent headaches, right leg numbness and weakness, and difficulty with memory and cognition Systemic lupus erythematosus (1, 100%) 2 h Left lateral decubitus 1 year

MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NS not specified, WHO World Health Organization.

*Total time spent in the operating theatre.

Six (66.7%) lesions were in the left hemisphere [3941, 43, 44, 46], whereas the other three (33.3%) were in the right hemisphere [42, 45, 47] (Table 3). The frontal lobe was the most common pathology region reported in four studies (44.4%) [39, 43, 44, 47], followed by frontoparietal regions in two (22.2%) [41, 45]. Temporal [40] and parietal [46] lobes pathologies were each reported in one study (11.1%). One (11.1%) study did not specify the pathologic lobe [42]. Eight studies (88.9%) have reported proximity to eloquent areas such as motor and Wernicke areas as an indication to choose AC instead of GA [4047]. In addition, 4 studies (44.4%) have specified the potential harm of general anesthesia to the patient and fetus, such as reported acid–base status deterioration caused by prolonged propofol usage in GA for pregnant neurosurgical patients [41, 44, 45, 47, 48]. One study (11.1%) did not specify the indication for choosing AC instead of GA [39]. All studies employed intraoperative fetal monitoring, and seven studies (77.8%) specified fetal heart rate monitoring [3945]. Two (22.2%) studies did not specify their type of monitoring [46, 47].

Table 3.

A Summary of Lesion Characteristics and Operation Details

Study Lesion hemisphere Lesion location AC indication Eloquent area lesion and mapping (n, %) Intraoperative fetal monitoring Pre-operative localization AC extent of resection (n, %)
Abd-Elsayed et al. 2013 Left (1, 100%) Frontal lobe (1, 100%) NS NS Yes- Heart rate NS (2.4 × 2.2 cm) NS
Handlogten et al. 2015 [40] Left (1, 100%) Temporal lobe (1, 100%) Eloquent language area (Wernicke’s area) lesion Motor and speech (1, 100%) Yes- Heart rate and movement MRI (4.5 × 3.2 × 3.5 cm intracranial mass) Total/near total (1, 100%)
Meng et al. 2016 [41] Left (1, 100%) Frontoparietal white matter (1, 100%) Avoiding fetus and patient exposure to harmful anesthestic medication, and frontoparietal lesion Language and sensorimotor (1, 100%) Yes- Heart rate MRI (7 × 6 × 5 cm anterior– posterior transverse cranio–caudal) Subtotal (1, 100%)
Hedayat et al. 2017 [42] Right (1, 100%) NS Cortical lesion NS Yes- Heart rate CT and cerebral angiography NS
Kamata et al. 2017 [44] Left (1, 100%) Frontal lobe (1, 100%) Avoiding fetus and patient exposure to harmful anesthestic medication, and facilitating full-term birth Motor (1, 100%) Yes- Heart rate MRI (6 cm) Total/near total (1, 100%)
Al Mashani, 2018 [45] Right (1, 100%) Frontoparietal region (1, 100%) Avoiding fetus and patient exposure to harmful anesthestic medication, and eloquent area (frontoparietal close to motor area) lesion Motor and speech (1, 100%) Yes- Tococardiography MRI (8.2 × 4.5 × 4.6 cm) NS
Pawlik et al. 2018 [46] Left (1, 100%) Parietal lobe (1, 100%) Eloquent area lesion Speech (1, 100%) Yes- NS MRI (NS) NS
Kumar et al. 2020 [47] Right (1, 100%) Frontal lobe (1, 100%) Avoiding fetus exposure to harmful anesthestic medication and enhancing recovery Motor (1, 100%) Yes- NS MRI (extra-axial- NS) Total (1, 100%)
Gunasekaran et al. 2022 [43] Left (1, 100%) Frontal lobe (1, 100%) Eloquent motor area Motor (1, 100%) Yes- Heart rate using Doppler MRI (2.0 × 1.5 × 1.5 cm intracranial mass at the level of the coronal suture) Total (1, 100%)

AC awake craniotomy, CT computerized tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NS not specified.

Pre-, intra-, and post-operative monitoring of the fetus

On the day of the AC, Gunasekaran et al. [43] used Doppler to assess fetal cardiac activity, which was indicated as normal. Post-operative Doppler examination also redemonstrated normal fetal activity once the patient was transported to the recovery room. In another study by Kumar and colleagues [47], the fetal heart sounds were monitored pre-operatively by an obstetrician, who administered cyclogest 800 mg rectally as a tocolytic agent.

The mean gestational age at diagnosis was 13.6 ± 6.5 weeks (Table 4). The earliest diagnosis was at two weeks [42], and the latest was at 22 weeks [46] pregnancy. One study (11.1%) did not specify the gestational age at diagnosis [41]. The mean gestational age at craniotomy was 19.6 ± 6.9 weeks with the earliest AC reported on week nine [43], and the latest one at the 30th week [41]. In total, 10 healthy babies were delivered from patients who underwent AC.

Table 4.

Pregnancy Details and Outcome

Study Gestational age at diagnosis (week) Gestational age at craniotomy (week) Pregnancy term Delivery method Hospitalization length Intraoperative complications Neonatal outcome
Abd-Elsayed et al. 2013 [39] 18 22 No NS NS None Viable infant with normal Apgar score
Handlogten et al. 2015 [40] 16 20 Yes Vaginal NS None Healthy baby delivered vaginally at term
Meng et al. 2016 [41] NS 30 No- 31 weeks Under spinal anesthesia on post-operative day 4 NS NS Two babies were uneventfully delivered
Hedayat et al. 2017 [42] 2 23 Yes NS NS Unsuccessful primary reconstruction of vessel and aneurysmorrhaphy. Unsuccessful end-to-end bypass The fetus was delivered at term with no obstetric or neurological complications. Pre, intra, and post-operative monitoring of the fetus's heart rate showed no abnormalities or variabilities
Kamata et al. 2017 [44] 21 27 No- 35 weeks and 2 days NS NS No complications Healthy baby of 2,137 g delivered. The baby did not show any evidence of medical or developmental concern at 17 months follow-up
Al Mashani, 2018 [45] 10 10 NS NS NS None NS regarding delivery, did mention that post-operative the fetal status was satisfactory
Pawlik et al. 2018 [46] 22 22 NS NS NS None No changes in fetal status were observed post-operatively. No fetus or intrauterine volume abnormalities were discovered in ultrasound a day following AC
Kumar et al. 2020 [47] 13 13 NS NS 3 days NS No changes in fetal status post-operatively. Viable heart sounds were heard post-operatively indicating the fetus's viability
Gunasekaran et al. 2022 [43] 7 9 No- the baby was delivered at 34 weeks gestation Cesarean section 1 day None No change in fetal status was observed post-operatively. Doppler monitoring was completed and demonstrated a normal fetal heart rate. The baby was born via cesarian section at 34 weeks gestation due to preterm premature rupture of membranes and concerning fetal monitoring findings (NS). The baby was 5 months old and healthy when the article was written

AC awake craniotomy, NS not specified.

None of the AC procedures was converted to general anesthesia. A summary of outcomes from each study is summarized in Table 5. Post-operative treatment was specified in three (33.3%) studies [41, 43, 44]. Meng et al. [41] used a partial course of external beam radiotherapy and chemotherapy for their patient. Kamata et al. [44] specified that as pathological examination revealed an anaplastic astrocytoma (WHO grade III), radiotherapy and chemotherapy began two months after delivery. Fractionated radiotherapy was used over 40 days by Gunasekaran et al. [43], and the patient opted out of adjuvant temozolomide treatment. Six (66.7%) studies did not specify the post-operative treatment [39, 40, 42, 4547].

Table 5.

Neurological Details and Main Outcome Summary

Study Conversion to GA Pre-operative neurological symptoms Post-operative complications Post-operative neurological deficits resolved Post-operative treatment Main outcome
Abd-Elsayed et al. 2013 [39] No NS Patient deceased 16 months after craniotomy NS NS AC caused no intra or post-operative complications. The baby was delivered with normal Apgar scores. The patient deceased 16 months after the craniotomy
Handlogten et al. 2015 [40] No Seizure, expressive & receptive aphafasia No new neurological deficits NS NS Use of dexmedetomidine and mannitol during AC in a pregnant patient did not lead to notable maternal and fetal adverse effects. There were no intra operative or post-operative complications or newly developed post-operative neurological deficits. The use of mannitol did lead to a transient 30% reduction in internal uterine volume but had no overt maternal or fetal/neonatal adverse effects. A healthy baby was delivered uneventfully at term
Meng et al. 2016 [41] No Dysfluency, word-finding difficulty, right upper extremity paralysis, right lower extremities weakness No immediate post-operative deficits. Receiving hospice care 12 months post-AC. Walking impairment, comprehensible but slurred speech Significant improvement in fluency with naming and speech comprehension post-operative day 1, but with impaired repetition. The strength of the right arm and leg returned to baseline except for a weak hand grip Partial course of external beam radiotherapy and chemotherapy The patient showed significant post-operative day 1 improvement in naming and comprehension, and the strength of the right arm and leg returned to baseline apart from a weak hand grip. No intra operative complications were seen. Two babies (twin) were delivered uneventfully on post-operative day 4 under spinal anesthesia. 12 months post-operative patient is receiving hospice care, with progressive worsening of right leg weakness and slurred speech
Hedayat et al. 2017 [42] No Intermittent headaches, dizziness, and hand tingling No post-operative neurological deficits NS NS AC for management of a pseudoaneurysm in a pregnant female at 23-week gestation was successfully done without any post-operative neurological complications. Pre- and post-operative fetal heart rate monitoring showed no variabilities or abnormalities. The baby was successfully delivered at term. No neurological complications were observed in follow-up visits
Kamata et al. 2017 [44] No Generalized convulsive seizures None NS Radiotherapy and chemotherapy 2 months post-delivery AC for removal of high-grade glioma in a pregnant patient at 27-week gestation was successfully conducted with full tumor resection. No intra operative or post-operative complications were seen. The patient delivered a healthy baby at 35 weeks gestation. At the 17-month follow-up, there was no evidence of tumor recurrence in the patient and no developmental or medical concerns for the child
Al Mashani, 2018 [45] No Seizures- unspecified type None NS NS AC for tumor removal in a pregnant patient at 10-week gestation was completed with no intra operative or post-operative complications. The fetal status was satisfactory intra operatively and post-operatively, there was no information provided regarding the pregnancy
Pawlik et al. 2018 [46] No Word finding difficulty NS NS NS AC for tumor removal in a pregnant patient at 22-week gestation was successfully completed with no intra operative complications. Obstetric abdominal ultrasound was done before, immediately after, and the next day after surgery and all showed no fetal or intrauterine volume abnormalities. AC has neuroprotective effects for the patient and is feasible during pregnancy
Kumar et al. 2020 [47] No Left eye blurred vision NS Complete resolution of symptoms post-operatively NS AC for tumor removal in a pregnant patient at 13-week gestation was successfully completed with complete resolution of symptoms at one-week follow-up. Extensive pre-op psychological preparation was done as part of anesthetic management. Post-operative obstetric review showed fetus viability as evident by fetal heart rate sounds. AC facilitates intraoperative neurological monitoring and provides hemodynamic stability with improved fetal-maternal outcomes
Gunasekaran et al. 2022 [43] No Generalized convulsive seizures, subjective right leg numbness and weakness, and difficulty with concentration and memory NS NS Fractionated radiotherapy alone over 40 days. The patient opted out of adjuvant temozolomide treatment AC for glioblastoma resection in a 24-year-old patient who was pregnant in her first trimester was successfully completed with gross total resection of the tumor. There were no intra operative complications, and after interdisciplinary care with adjuvant radiotherapy, one-year follow-up showed no further disease. There were no post-operative fetal complications, and a healthy baby was born at 34 weeks gestation. At the time the article was written, the baby was 5 months old and in good health. AC is a safe and effective process for resectioning glioblastoma in pregnancy

AC awake craniotomy, NS not specified.

Discussion

Significant physiological factors, including hormonal changes, increased blood volume (leading to increased intracranial pressures), and fluid retention may result in increased brain tumor growth and exacerbation of neurological symptoms in pregnant patients [36]. Gliomas and meningiomas are the most common types of adult primary brain tumors among general neurosurgical patients [49] and their growth may be accelerated during pregnancy due to the presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors on tumor cells [50]. In addition, pregnancy can have adverse effects and exacerbate the neurological consequences of tumors such as seizure and brainstem herniation [4]. Tumor growth and exacerbated neurological symptoms can occur in about 30% of pregnant patients with gliomas in the later stages of the pregnancy, probably due to multiple physiological changes, including an increase in blood pressure and endocrine changes causing tumor growth acceleration and edema [12], highlighting the importance of effective measures to tackle such complications. Furthermore, a decrease in the seizure threshold during pregnancy can enhance tumor-associated seizures [12].

In this systematic review, we demonstrated that AC is a feasible and safe procedure for lesions in eloquent areas. Primary malignant brain tumor in pregnant patients can be 2.6–15 per 100,000 [51, 52]. Due to such low incidence, there are insufficient guidelines for the management of intracranial lesions during pregnancy [3, 6, 53, 54], however; the significance of brain tumor in pregnant patients should not be underestimated. Various studies have discussed the neurological deterioration of patients with benign tumors such as low-grade-gliomas during pregnancy [12] which can be due to hormonal changes and increased peritumoral edema caused by fluid retention and increased intravascular volume during pregnancy [7]. Such complications can, in turn, increase intracranial pressure and make early surgical interventions inevitable in pregnant patients. For example, Giannini and Bricci [55] reported a case of a 30 year old patient with cerebellopontine angle meningioma who underwent surgical resection at 25 weeks of pregnancy due to worsening neurological deficits despite the initial plan for postponed surgery and Cesarean section at 35 weeks. However, it should be emphasized that comparing a sizeable cerebellopontine angle meningioma which causes perifical edema with a newly diagnosed low-grade glioma with no mass effect or edema can be misleading. As it has been mentioned, waiting for the fetus to reach a mature age for delivery may probably not make remarkable changes to the outcome of the latter patient. Indeed, future AC studies are required to address these caveats.

It should be noted that the preferred management is to defer the surgical intervention to later stages of pregnancy accompanied by Cesarean section for stable patients. Previous studies suggested that pregnancy can proceed to the second trimester and neurosurgical procedures be performed at this stage if pathology is diagnosed in the first and early second trimester and the patient is stable [39]. However, emergent neurosurgical interventions are required if the pregnant patient is unstable [56]. The decision to proceed with operative intervention is also influenced by the stage of the pregnancy. Based on the algorithm presented by Abd-Elsayed et. al. [39] for stable symptomatic patients in the first and early second trimester, neurosurgery is postponed to the early second trimester to permit gestational advancement, with the potential use of adjuvant radiotherapy beyond the first trimester, while the operative intervention is recommended at this stage for unstable patients. Towards the end of the second trimester and early third trimester, the stable patient is observed carefully without intervention, however, if the neurological symptoms worsen, radiotherapy can be used to delay the surgery with a decision to proceed to Caesarean section followed by neurosurgical operation under general anaesthesia if the patient is unstable and there is a chance of herniation. Regardless of the gestational age, surgeries should never be delayed or denied to pregnant women according to the recommendations made by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in conjunction with the American Society of Anesthesiologists to avoid adverse consequences on the pregnant woman and fetus [57]. Neurosurgical interventions can dramatically affect the pregnant person’s physiology. Furthermore, the impact of anesthetic medications on the patient and fetus should be carefully considered. Multiple factors, including type, size, and location of the brain pathology, neurological symptoms, fetus age, and mother well-being should be considered before neurosurgical interventions during pregnancy. AC is associated with shorter hospitalization, fewer neurological deficits, improved psychological outcomes, and better prognosis and can be utilized in low-resource settings in combination with technological advances for general neurosurgical patients [21, 5860]. AC has been used for various surgical indications, including tumor [20, 61], epilepsy [62, 63], and aneurysms [31] to enhance general neurosurgical patients' outcomes [26, 64]. Treatment strategy for AC in pregnant patients can be extrapolated from the standard of care with additional consideration.

The majority of the studies reported in this systematic review have reported the proximity to the eloquent areas as an indication to choose AC over GA, which is the main indication for AC even in the non-pregnant population. Nonetheless, avoiding the potential harm of general anesthesia to both patient and fetus, such as metabolic changes caused by prolonged propofol exposure in long operations and shorter time of the operations are listed as other indications to choose AC for pregnant patients. However, some studies have reported that the usage of propofol in shorter operations is still clinically acceptable [65]. Shorter operation time, faster postoperative recovery, and fewer complications are other factors which favor AC compared to GA in general neurosurgical patients. The positive outcomes for both the patient and fetus reported in this study suggest that AC can be considered as a safe procedure in treating pathologies in the vicinity of the eloquent areas of the brain.

Various strategies should be employed to support the physical and mental well-being of the patient to deliver a healthy and viable child. Given the presence of the fetus, patient positioning during the procedure can also be important to provide comfort for the patient as well as make the procedure feasible and reduce complications. Indeed, pregnant patient positioning during AC requires adjustments, such as placing in a semi-lateral position, depending on tumor location as well as maintaining vena cava blood flow to reduce risks for the fetus [66]. Some studies have specifically indicated that a 15° left lateral tilt should be employed for pregnant patients undergoing surgery beyond 18–20 weeks of gestation to reduce aortocaval compression and supine hypotension syndrome [33]. Specifically in AC, Pawlik et al. [46] positioned patients semi-laterally to reduce the risk of aortocaval complications [67, 68].

General neurosurgical patients diagnosed with cancer, especially brain tumor, are at risk of increased anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and attempt [6971]. In addition to the psychological consequences associated with diagnosis, undergoing neurosurgical interventions can cause physiological and psychological pressure on patients as well [72]. Therefore, every effort should be employed to alleviate the psychological sequelae of treatment on pregnant patients. AC has been shown to result in a lower psychological sequel for non-pregnant patients, even in low-resource settings [21, 58]. However, there have been no studies specifically evaluating the psychological well-being of pregnant patients undergoing AC, and future studies are required to address this gap in our knowledge given the increased psychological pressure that pregnant patients experience by worrying about their own as well as their fetus’s health. Furthermore, ethical considerations should be addressed regarding the well-being of the patient and the maintenance of the pregnancy or preterm termination [73, 74].

The decision to use fetal monitoring intraoperatively during AC should be based on fetal viability (generally 23 weeks and above), the feasibility of performing intraoperative monitoring, the availability of an obstetrician, the ability to easily access the maternal abdomen and safely interrupt the procedure to perform an emergency cesarean and, finally, the equipment and staff to care for the neonate [4].

Propofol is commonly used alone or in combination with a short-acting opioid for sedation during AC [75]; however, its use has been contraindicated in pregnancy due to metabolic acidosis effects [76]; Kamata et al. [44] used sevoflurane, which deteriorates intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, instead of propofol. Adjuvant therapies post-operatively also require careful consideration of the consequences during the lactation period. For example, Kamata et al. [44] commenced adjuvant therapy when the lactation period was completed.

According to the European Society of Medical Oncology clinical practice guidelines on systemic therapy in pregnancy, chemotherapy should be avoided during the first trimester due to the high risk of congenital malformations in nearly 20% of patients [48]. Termination of pregnancy should be considered in pregnant patients with aggressive malignancies requiring chemotherapy in the first trimester [66]. Administration of most chemotherapeutic agents may be safe during subsequent trimesters; however, they may cause complications, including intrauterine growth impairment, low birth weight, premature birth, stillbirth, myocardial toxicity, and myelosuppression; therefore, their risk should be assessed for individual patients [66]. Specifically, vinblastine is safe during the first trimester, whereas antimetabolites cytarabine and 5-fluorouracil, alkylating agents cyclophosphamide and dacarbazine, anthracyclines doxorubicin and epirubicin, vinca alkaloids vinblastine, vincristine and vinorelbine, taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel, and platinum agents cisplatin and carboplatin are safe during second and third trimesters [66, 77]. Of note, atrial septal defect, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm delivery, pre-eclampsia, and death have been reported for the pregnant patients being exposed to either vincristine or vinblastine [78]. Furthermore, six pregnant patients with brain gliomas who received either temozolomide or the combination of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine in the first month of the pregnancy unintentionally delivered healthy babies [79]. Temozolomide is a category D pregnancy medication which is not generally recommended, but it can be used if the benefits to the mother outweigh the risks to the fetus. However, healthy fetus delivery despite using temozolomide in the first trimester is reported [80, 81]. There are other particular considerations; for example, a three-week gap between the last chemotherapy and delivery should be made to avoid pre-term or spontaneous delivery [66, 82].

Vaginal delivery is permitted at term in a stable pregnant patient undergoing neurosurgical interventions [83], as some studies have debated that the cesarian section does not provide significant advantages over a vaginal delivery for intracranial pressure [39]. Preparations are required in case an emergency cesarian section is required. An emergency cesarian section may be required under epidural or general anesthesia if fetal distress occurs during AC [41]. Various problems, such as intraoperative seizures, emergency intubation and conversion to general anesthesia, intracranial hypertension, hemorrhage, and lack of cooperation can arise during AC, further complicating the procedure. Furthermore, hyperventilation should be avoided, which may reduce the fetus's cardiac output due to diminished venous return. Further studies are required to assess the long-term developmental consequences of exposure to AC. While insufficient information on post-operative management was provided in the articles reviewed here, the post-operative care for pregnant patients undergoing neurosurgical interventions is similar to that of non-pregnant patients [84]. However, additional intermittent fetal monitoring may be required during the post-operative phase [66].

Limitations

Our review is subject to some limitations. There is a paucity of data in the published literature on AC during pregnancy, limiting included articles to case reports with nine patients and ten fetuses, which can affect the level of the evidence available and the strength of analyses conducted. The included articles were in English only. No study had a long-term follow-up of patients and fetuses to investigate the consequence of AC. A direct comparison of AC and general anesthesia is lacking in the literature. Furthermore, some information, such as operation time and post-operative treatment was not reported in some studies, making comparisons of the procedure with general anesthesia challenging. Despite such limitations, this article can add to the collective, yet limited, body of knowledge on neurosurgical interventions for the treatment of pregnant patients under awake conditions.

Conclusion

AC is a safe and effective method for the treatment of lesions in pregnancy, which requires an experienced multi-disciplinary team with the support of obstetrics-gynecology. Individualized plans and decisions are required for each pregnant patient considering multiple factors, including lesion pathology, gestational age, and patient preferences. Good knowledge of the variable anesthetic agents and their effects on the fetus is very important in managing those patients. Specific guidelines should be established for the management of pregnant patients via AC.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: MM, MSM, SA. Data acquisition: MM, MSM, SA, AK. Data quality check: MM, MSM, SA. Writing (original draft): MM, MSM, SA. Writing (reviewing and editing): MM, MSM, SA, HW, AK, GS, AP, AB, LE, JL, PP, XS, XL, SD, KA, AAC. Supervision: SD, KA, AAC. All authors contributed to this work.

Funding

No funding was obtained for this work.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Dr. Mohammad Mofatteh, Dr. Mohammad Mashayekhi, and Saman Arfaie are co-founders of the Neuro International Collaboration (NIC; https://neuro.international/). Dr. Sunit Das is a speaker bureau of the CNS and AANS, is in the advisory board of the Subcortical Surgery Group and Xpan Medical, and serves as the Provincial Lead for CNS Oncology at Cancer Care Ontario. Dr. Sunit Das lab has received research support from Alkermes, and he has grant funding from CIHR, the Cancer Research Society, and the Canadian Cancer Society. The funding body had or has no involvement in study design, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data, or the decision to submit for publication.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Esmaeilzadeh M, Uksul N, Hong B, von Kaisenberg C, Scheinichen D, Lang JM, Hermann EJ, Hillemanns P, Krauss JK. Intracranial emergencies during pregnancy requiring urgent neurosurgical treatment. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;195:105905. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ng J, Kitchen N. Neurosurgery and pregnancy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79:745. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2007.117002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ghimire P, Pang G, Philip J, Hazem S, Rajwani K, Lavrador JP, Grahovac G, Bleil C, Thomas N, Gullan R, Vergani F, Bhangoo R, Ashkan K. Therapeutic strategies and challenges in the Management of Craniospinal Tumors in pregnancy: A ten-year retrospective tertiary-center study, systematic review, and proposal of treatment algorithms. World Neurosurg. 2023;171:e213–e229. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.11.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zong H, Xu H, Geng Z, Ma C, Ming X, Shang M, Li K, He X, Du H, Zhao J, Cao L. Reproductive factors in relation to risk of brain tumors in women: an updated meta-analysis of 27 independent studies. Tumor Biol. 2014;35:11579–11586. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2448-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moscovici S, Fraifeld S, Cohen JE, Dotan S, Elchalal U, Shoshan Y, Spektor S. Parasellar meningiomas in pregnancy: Surgical results and visual outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2014;82:e503–e512. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Elwatidy S, Jamjoom Z, Elgamal E, Abdelwahab A. Management strategies for acute brain lesions presenting during pregnancy: A case series. Br J Neurosurg. 2011;25:478–487. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2010.550345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stevenson CB, Thompson RC. The clinical management of intracranial neoplasms in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48:24–37. doi: 10.1097/01.grf.0000153209.70749.d0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lynch JC, Gouvêa F, Emmerich JC, Kokinovrachos G, Pereira C, Welling L, Kislanov S. Management strategy for brain tumour diagnosed during pregnancy. Br J Neurosurg. 2011;25:225–230. doi: 10.3109/02688697.2010.508846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Proskynitopoulos PJ, Lam FC, Sharma S, Young BC, Laviv Y, Kasper EM. A review of the neurosurgical management of brain metastases during pregnancy. Can J Neurol Sci. 2021;48:698–707. doi: 10.1017/cjn.2020.254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cohen-Gadol AA, Friedman JA, Friedman JD, Tubbs RS, Munis JR, Meyer FB. Neurosurgical management of intracranial lesions in the pregnant patient: A 36-year institutional experience and review of the literature. J Neurosurg. 2009;111:1150–1157. doi: 10.3171/2009.3.Jns081160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Verheecke M, Halaska MJ, Lok CA, Ottevanger PB, Fruscio R, Dahl-Steffensen K, Kolawa W, Gziri MM, Han SN, Van Calsteren K, Van den Heuvel F, De Vleeschouwer S, Clement PM, Menten J, Amant F. Primary brain tumours, meningiomas and brain metastases in pregnancy: Report on 27 cases and review of literature. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1462–1471. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zwinkels H, Dörr J, Kloet F, Taphoorn MJ, Vecht CJ. Pregnancy in women with gliomas: A case-series and review of the literature. J Neurooncol. 2013;115:293–301. doi: 10.1007/s11060-013-1229-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bateman BT, Olbrecht VA, Berman MF, Minehart RD, Schwamm LH, Leffert LR. Peripartum subarachnoid hemorrhage: Nationwide data and institutional experience. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:324–333. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182410b22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Laviv Y, Bayoumi A, Mahadevan A, Young B, Boone M, Kasper EM. Meningiomas in pregnancy: Timing of surgery and clinical outcomes as observed in 104 cases and establishment of a best management strategy. Acta Neurochir. 2018;160:1521–1529. doi: 10.1007/s00701-017-3146-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Berman D, Touré B (2018) 175C22Neurosurgery in pregnancy. In: Neuroanesthesia: A problem-based learning approach [Internet]. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/med/9780190850036.003.0022
  • 16.Duffau H, Lopes M, Arthuis F, Bitar A, Sichez JP, Van Effenterre R, Capelle L. Contribution of intraoperative electrical stimulations in surgery of low grade gliomas: A comparative study between two series without (1985–96) and with (1996–2003) functional mapping in the same institution. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:845. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2004.048520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kim SS, McCutcheon IE, Suki D, Weinberg JS, Sawaya R, Lang FF, Ferson D, Heimberger AB, DeMonte F, Prabhu SS (2009) Awake craniotomy for brain tumors near eloquent cortex: Correlation of intraoperative cortical mapping with neurological outcomes in 309 consecutive patients. Neurosurgery 64:836–845; discussion 345–836. 10.1227/01.Neu.0000342405.80881.81 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 18.Ruis C. Monitoring cognition during awake brain surgery in adults: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2018;40:1081–1104. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2018.1469602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Voets NL, Pretorius P, Birch MD, Apostolopoulos V, Stacey R, Plaha P. Diffusion tractography for awake craniotomy: Accuracy and factors affecting specificity. J Neurooncol. 2021;153:547–557. doi: 10.1007/s11060-021-03795-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Foster CH, Morone PJ, Cohen-Gadol A. Awake craniotomy in glioma surgery: Is it necessary? J Neurosurg Sci. 2019;63:162–178. doi: 10.23736/s0390-5616.18.04590-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mofatteh M, Mashayekhi MS, Arfaie S, Chen Y, Hendi K, Kwan ATH, Honarvar F, Solgi A, Liao X, Ashkan K. Stress, anxiety, and depression associated with awake craniotomy: A systematic review. Neurosurgery. 2023;92:225–240. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gerritsen JKW, Zwarthoed RH, Kilgallon JL, Nawabi NL, Jessurun CAC, Versyck G, Pruijn KP, Fisher FL, Larivière E, Solie L, Mekary RA, Satoer DD, Schouten JW, Bos EM, Kloet A, Nandoe Tewarie R, Smith TR, Dirven CMF, De Vleeschouwer S, Broekman MLD, Vincent AJPE. Effect of awake craniotomy in glioblastoma in eloquent areas (GLIOMAP): A propensity score-matched analysis of an international, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:802–817. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00213-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang JJY, Lee KS, Voisin MR, Hervey-Jumper SL, Berger MS, Zadeh G (2020) Awake craniotomy for resection of supratentorial glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurooncol Adv 2:vdaa111. 10.1093/noajnl/vdaa111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 24.Li Y-C, Chiu H-Y, Lin Y-J, Chen K-T, Hsu P-W, Huang Y-C, Chen P-Y, Wei K-C. The merits of awake craniotomy for glioblastoma in the left hemispheric eloquent area: One institution experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021;200:106343. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.De Witt Hamer PC, Robles SG, Zwinderman AH, Duffau H, Berger MS. Impact of intraoperative stimulation brain mapping on glioma surgery outcome: A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2559–2565. doi: 10.1200/jco.2011.38.4818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hervey-Jumper SL, Li J, Lau D, Molinaro AM, Perry DW, Meng L, Berger MS. Awake craniotomy to maximize glioma resection: Methods and technical nuances over a 27-year period. J Neurosurg. 2015;123:325–339. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.Jns141520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Malekpour M, Cohen-Gadol AA. Interhemispheric transfalcine approach and awake cortical mapping for resection of peri-atrial gliomas associated with the central lobule. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22:383–386. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Alimohamadi M, Shirani M, Shariat Moharari R, Pour-Rashidi A, Ketabchi M, Khajavi M, Arami M, Amirjamshidi A. Application of awake craniotomy and intraoperative brain mapping for surgical resection of insular gliomas of the dominant hemisphere. World Neurosurgery. 2016;92:151–158. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hall S, Kabwama S, Sadek A-R, Dando A, Roach J, Weidmann C, Grundy P. Awake craniotomy for tumour resection: The safety and feasibility of a simple technique. Interdiscip Neurosurg. 2021;24:101070. doi: 10.1016/j.inat.2020.101070. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bakhshi SK, Jawed N, Shafiq F, Enam SA. Awake craniotomy for resection of intracranial meningioma: First case series from a low- and middle-income country. Cureus. 2021;13:e18716. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abdulrauf SI. Awake craniotomies for aneurysms, arteriovenous malformations, skull base tumors, high flow bypass, and brain stem lesions. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2015;6:8–9. doi: 10.4103/0974-8237.151580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nitta M, Muragaki Y, Maruyama T, Ikuta S, Komori T, Maebayashi K, Iseki H, Tamura M, Saito T, Okamoto S, Chernov M, Hayashi M, Okada Y. Proposed therapeutic strategy for adult low-grade glioma based on aggressive tumor resection. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38:E7. doi: 10.3171/2014.10.Focus14651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Upadya M, Saneesh PJ. Anaesthesia for non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60:234–241. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.179445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Li X, Jiang X, Zhao P (2021) Effects of Pregnancy Anesthesia on Fetal Nervous System. Front Pharmacol 11. 10.3389/fphar.2020.523514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 35.Staneva A, Bogossian F, Pritchard M, Wittkowski A. The effects of maternal depression, anxiety, and perceived stress during pregnancy on preterm birth: A systematic review. Women Birth. 2015;28:179–193. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.M Molina-Botello D, Rodríguez-Sanchez JR, Cuevas-García J, Cárdenas-Almaraz BV, Morales-Acevedo A, Mejía-Pérez SI, Ochoa-Martinez E (2021) Pregnancy and brain tumors; a systematic review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 86:211-216.10.1016/j.jocn.2021.01.048 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 37.Shiro R, Murakami K, Miyauchi M, Sanada Y, Matsumura N (2021) Management Strategies for Brain Tumors Diagnosed during Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review. Medicina 57(6). 10.3390/medicina57060613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 38.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Abd-Elsayed AA, Díaz-Gómez J, Barnett GH, Kurz A, Inton-Santos M, Barsoum S, Avitsian R, Ebrahim Z, Jevtovic-Todorovic V, Farag E (2013) A case series discussing the anaesthetic management of pregnant patients with brain tumours. F1000Res 2:92. 10.12688/f1000research.2-92.v2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 40.Handlogten KS, Sharpe EE, Brost BC, Parney IF, Pasternak JJ. Dexmedetomidine and mannitol for awake craniotomy in a pregnant patient. Anesth Analg. 2015;120:1099–1103. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000000710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Meng L, Han SJ, Rollins MD, Gelb AW, Chang EF. Awake brain tumor resection during pregnancy: Decision making and technical nuances. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;24:160–162. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hedayat H, Felbaum DR, Reynolds JE, Janjua RM. Awake craniotomy for the treatment of a cortical pseudoaneurysm in a pregnant patient. Cureus. 2017;9:e1921. doi: 10.7759/cureus.1921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gunasekaran A, Kulbarsh KD, Das A, Voelkel-Johnson C, Patel SJ, Lindhorst S, Yazdani M, Barley J, Rowland NC. Case report: Awake craniotomy during pregnancy for resection of glioblastoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2022;216:107218. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kamata K, Fukushima R, Nomura M, Ozaki M. A case of left frontal high-grade glioma diagnosed during pregnancy. JA Clin Rep. 2017;3:18. doi: 10.1186/s40981-017-0090-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Al Mashani AM, Ali A, Chatterjee N, Suri N, Das S. Awake craniotomy during pregnancy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2018;30:372–373. doi: 10.1097/ana.0000000000000424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pawlik J, Tomaszek L, Mazurek H, Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska W. Risk factors and protective factors against Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia-A Single-Center mixed prospective and retrospective cohort study. J Pers Med. 2022;12:4. doi: 10.3390/jpm12040597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kumar D, Siraj S, Ahsan K, Shafiq F. Utilization of awake craniotomy for supra-tentorial tumor resection during pregnancy: A technique useful for fetal-maternal wellbeing. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36:293–295. doi: 10.12669/pjms.36.2.1853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hilton G, Andrzejowski JC. Prolonged propofol infusions in pregnant neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2007;19:67–68. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0b013e31802b31c8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Farah P, Ondracek A, Chen Y, Wolinsky Y, Stroup NE, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS (2013) CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006–2010. Neuro Oncol 15 Suppl 2:ii1–56. 10.1093/neuonc/not151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 50.Troisi R, Bjørge T, Gissler M, Grotmol T, Kitahara CM, Myrtveit Saether SM, Ording AG, Sköld C, Sørensen HT, Trabert B, Glimelius I. The role of pregnancy, perinatal factors and hormones in maternal cancer risk: A review of the evidence. J Intern Med. 2018;283:430–445. doi: 10.1111/joim.12747. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bondy ML, Scheurer ME, Malmer B, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Davis FG, Il'yasova D, Kruchko C, McCarthy BJ, Rajaraman P, Schwartzbaum JA, Sadetzki S, Schlehofer B, Tihan T, Wiemels JL, Wrensch M, Buffler PA. Brain tumor epidemiology: consensus from the brain tumor epidemiology consortium. Cancer. 2008;113:1953–1968. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Taylan E, Akdemir A, Zeybek B, Ergenoglu AM, Yeniel AO. Recurrent brain tumor with hydrocephalus in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:464–467. doi: 10.1111/jog.12546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Karbhari N, Thomas AA. Clinical management of brain tumors in pregnancy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2022;34(6):691–7. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ravindra VM, Braca JA, 3rd, Jensen RL, Duckworth EA. Management of intracranial pathology during pregnancy: Case example and review of management strategies. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6:43. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.153845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Giannini A, Bricchi M. Posterior fossa surgery in the sitting position in a pregnant patient with cerebellopontine angle meningioma. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82:941–944. doi: 10.1093/bja/82.6.941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tewari KS, Cappuccini F, Asrat T, Flamm BL, Carpenter SE, Disaia PJ, Quilligan EJ. Obstetric emergencies precipitated by malignant brain tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1215–1221. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(00)70188-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.ACOG Committee Opinion No. 775: Nonobstetric Surgery During Pregnancy (2019). Obstet Gynecol 133:e285-e286.10.1097/aog.0000000000003174 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 58.Mofatteh M, Mashayekhi MS, Arfaie S, Adeleye AO, Jolayemi EO, Ghomsi NC, Shlobin NA, Morsy AA, Esene IN, Laeke T, Awad AK, Labuschagne JJ, Ruan R, Abebe YN, Jabang JN, Okunlola AI, Barrie U, Lekuya HM, Idi Marcel E, Kabulo KDM, Bankole NDA, Edem IJ, Ikwuegbuenyi CA, Nguembu S, Zolo Y, Bernstein M. Awake craniotomy in Africa: A scoping review of literature and proposed solutions to tackle challenges. Neurosurgery. 2023 doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mofatteh M, Mashayekhi MS, Arfaie S, Chen Y, Mirza AB, Fares J, Bandyopadhyay S, Henich E, Liao X, Bernstein M. Augmented and virtual reality usage in awake craniotomy: A systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2022;46:19. doi: 10.1007/s10143-022-01929-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Mofatteh M (2021) Neurosurgery and artificial intelligence. AIMS Neurosci 8:477-495.10.3934/Neuroscience.2021025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 61.McAuliffe N, Nicholson S, Rigamonti A, Hare GMT, Cusimano M, Garavaglia M, Pshonyak I, Das S. Awake craniotomy using dexmedetomidine and scalp blocks: A retrospective cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2018;65:1129–1137. doi: 10.1007/s12630-018-1178-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wang YC, Lee CC, Takami H, Shen S, Chen KT, Wei KC, Wu MH, Worrell G, Chen PY. Awake craniotomies for epileptic gliomas: intraoperative and postoperative seizure control and prognostic factors. J Neurooncol. 2019;142:577–586. doi: 10.1007/s11060-019-03131-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Vigren P, Eriksson M, Duffau H, Wretman A, Lindehammar H, Milos P, Richter J, Karlsson T, Gauffin H. Experiences of awake surgery in non-tumoural epilepsy in eloquent localizations. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;199:106251. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Groshev A, Padalia D, Patel S, Garcia-Getting R, Sahebjam S, Forsyth PA, Vrionis FD, Etame AB. Clinical outcomes from maximum-safe resection of primary and metastatic brain tumors using awake craniotomy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;157:25–30. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.03.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Wang LP, Paech MJ. Neuroanesthesia for the pregnant woman. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:193–200. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816c8888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Goyal S, Yadav A, Madan R, Chitkara A, Singh R, Khosla D, Kumar N. Managing brain tumors in pregnancy: The oncologist's struggle with maternal-fetal conflict. J Cancer Res Ther. 2022;18:5–18. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1343_20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lee SWY, Khaw KS, Ngan Kee WD, Leung TY, Critchley LAH (2012) Haemodynamic effects from aortocaval compression at different angles of lateral tilt in non-labouring term pregnant women†‡. BJA: Brit J Anaesth 109:950–956. 10.1093/bja/aes349 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 68.Kinsella SM. Lateral tilt for pregnant women: why 15 degrees? Anaesthesia. 2003;58:835–836. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03397.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mofatteh M, Mashayekhi MS, Arfaie S, Chen Y, Malhotra AK, Alvi MA, Sader N, Antonick V, Fatehi Hassanabad M, Mansouri A, Das S, Liao X, McIntyre RS, Del Maestro R, Turecki G, Cohen-Gadol AA, Zadeh G, Ashkan K (2023) Suicidal ideation and attempts in brain tumor patients and survivors: A systematic review. Neurooncol Adv 5:vdad058. 10.1093/noajnl/vdad058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 70.Fehrenbach MK, Brock H, Mehnert-Theuerkauf A, Meixensberger J (2021) Psychological Distress in Intracranial Neoplasia: A Comparison of Patients With Benign and Malignant Brain Tumours. Front Psychol 12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 71.Huang J, Zeng C, Xiao J, Zhao D, Tang H, Wu H, Chen J. Association between depression and brain tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:94932–94943. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.19843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Oh TK, Song I-A, Park HY, Jeon Y-T. Depression and mortality after craniotomy for brain tumor removal: A Nationwide cohort study in South Korea. J Affect Disord. 2021;295:291–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.van Bogaert L-J, Dhai A. Ethical challenges of treating the critically ill pregnant patient. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22:983–996. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Burkle CM, Tessmer-Tuck J, Wijdicks EF. Medical, legal, and ethical challenges associated with pregnancy and catastrophic brain injury. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;129:276–280. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Prontera A, Baroni S, Marudi A, Valzania F, Feletti A, Benuzzi F, Bertellini E, Pavesi G. Awake craniotomy anesthetic management using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remifentanil. Drug Des Dev Ther. 2017;11:593–598. doi: 10.2147/dddt.S124736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Peccatori FA, Azim HA, Jr., Orecchia R, Hoekstra HJ, Pavlidis N, Kesic V, Pentheroudakis G (2013) Cancer, pregnancy and fertility: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24 Suppl 6:vi160–170. 10.1093/annonc/mdt199 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 77.Schwab R, Anic K, Hasenburg A (2021) Cancer and Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 13(12). 10.3390/cancers13123048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 78.Cardonick E, Iacobucci A. Use of chemotherapy during human pregnancy. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5(5):283–291. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01466-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Koutras A, Ntounis T, Fasoulakis Z, Papalios T, Pittokopitou S, Prokopakis I, et al. Cancer treatment and immunotherapy during pregnancy. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:10. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14102080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Evans AC, Nelson MB, Dhall G. Pregnancy in a patient with a malignant brain tumor taking temozolomide: Case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2015;32(5):326–328. doi: 10.1177/1043454214563414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Castellanos MI, Childress KJ, Ramirez M, Venkatramani R (2020) Fetal exposure to capecitabine and temozolomide during the first trimester: A case report. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 101881 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 82.Azim HA, Jr, Peccatori FA, Pavlidis N. Treatment of the pregnant mother with cancer: A systematic review on the use of cytotoxic, endocrine, targeted agents and immunotherapy during pregnancy. Part I: Solid tumors. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36:101–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Cirak B, Kiymaz N, Kerman M, Tahta K (2003) Neurosurgical procedures in pregnancy. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira 18. 10.1590/S0102-86502003000100002
  • 84.Wu J, Ma YH, Wang TL. Glioma in the third trimester of pregnancy: Two cases and a review of the literature. Oncol Lett. 2013;5:943–946. doi: 10.3892/ol.2013.1106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


Articles from Neurosurgical Review are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES