TABLE 3.
Current Indications of Available Stimulation Paradigms According to the Tumor Location (and Circuits) To Be Investigated and Anesthesia Regimen Used
| Awake condition | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asleep condition | Resting condition | During a motor task execution | |||
| Premotor and parietal tumors | |||||
| HF | LF | HF | LF | HF | LF |
| Effective limited risk of negativemapping | To consider risk of negative mapping | Efficacy and risk as for asleep condition | Efficacy and risk as for asleep condition | Effective (repetition rate increased to 3 Hz) | Effective working current established on vPM |
| M1 and M1 originating fibers | |||||
| HF | LF | HF | LF | HF | LF |
| Effective (change in pulses number andwidth possibly needed). Very limitedrisk of negative mapping. | Poorly effective high risk of negative mapping. Increased risk of intraoperative seizures. | Efficacy and risk as for asleep condition | Efficacy and risk as for asleep condition | Limited data | Limited data |
| Informative on distance from M1 fibers (1 mA = 1 mm rule) | Informative on distance from M1 fibers (1 mA = 1 mm rule) | ||||
| Increased risk of postoperative apraxia (damage to SLFIII) | Increased risk of intraoperative seizure | ||||
The efficacy and the limitations or risk for each condition is reported.