The review provides a comprehensive update (previous report: Chen R, Cros D, Curra A, Di Lazzaro V, Lefaucheur JP, Magistris MR, et al. The clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol 2008;119(3):504-32) on clinical diagnostic utility of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in neurological diseases. Most TMS measures rely on stimulation of motor cortex and recording of motor evoked potentials. Paired-pulse TMS techniques, incorporating conventional amplitude-based and threshold tracking, have established clinical utility in neurodegenerative, movement, episodic (epilepsy, migraines), chronic pain and functional diseases. Cortical hyperexcitability has emerged as a diagnostic aid in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Single-pulse TMS measures are of utility in stroke, and myelopathy even in the absence of radiological changes. Short-latency afferent inhibition, related to central cholinergic transmission, is reduced in Alzheimer's disease. The triple stimulation technique (TST) may enhance diagnostic utility of conventional TMS measures to detect upper motor neuron involvement. The recording of motor evoked potentials can be used to perform functional mapping of the motor cortex or in preoperative assessment of eloquent brain regions before surgical resection of brain tumors. TMS exhibits utility in assessing lumbosacral/cervical nerve root function, especially in demyelinating neuropathies, and may be of utility in localizing the site of facial nerve palsies. TMS measures also have high sensitivity in detecting subclinical corticospinal lesions in multiple sclerosis. Abnormalities in central motor conduction time or TST correlate with motor impairment and disability in MS. Cerebellar stimulation may detect lesions in the cerebellum or cerebello-dentato-thalamo-motor cortical pathways. Combining TMS with electroencephalography, provides a novel method to measure parameters altered in neurological disorders, including cortical excitability, effective connectivity, and response complexity.
Object: Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is a newly evolving technique. Despite its supposed purpose (for example, preoperative central region mapping), little is known about its accuracy compared with established modalities like direct cortical stimulation (DCS) and functional MR (fMR) imaging. Against this background, the authors performed the current study to compare the accuracy of nTMS with DCS and fMR imaging. Methods: Fourteen patients with tumors in or close to the precentral gyrus were examined using nTMS for motor cortex mapping, as were 12 patients with lesions in the subcortical white matter motor tract. Moreover, preoperative fMR imaging and intraoperative mapping of the motor cortex were performed via DCS, and the outlining of the motor cortex was compared. Results: In the 14 cases of lesions affecting the precentral gyrus, the primary motor cortex as outlined by nTMS correlated well with that delineated by intraoperative DCS mapping, with a deviation of 4.4 ± 3.4 mm between the two methods. In comparing nTMS with fMR imaging, the deviation between the two methods was much larger: 9.8 ± 8.5 mm for the upper extremity and 14.7 ± 12.4 mm for the lower extremity. In 13 of 14 cases, the surgeon admitted easier identification of the central region because of nTMS. The procedure had a subjectively positive influence on the operative results in 5 cases and was responsible for a changed resection strategy in 2 cases. One of 26 patients experienced nTMS as unpleasant; none found it painful. Conclusions: Navigated TMS correlates well with DCS as a gold standard despite factors that are supposed to contribute to the inaccuracy of nTMS. Moreover, surgeons have found nTMS to be an additional and helpful modality during the resection of tumors affecting eloquent motor areas, as well as during preoperative planning.
Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has been proven to influence surgical indication and planning. Yet there is still no clear evidence how these additional preoperative functional data influence the clinical course and outcome. Thus, this study aimed to compare patients with motor eloquently located supratentorial lesions investigated with or without preoperative nTMS in terms of clinical outcome parameters. A prospectively enrolled cohort of 100 patients with supratentorial lesions located in motor eloquent areas was investigated by preoperative nTMS (2010-2013) and matched with a control of 100 patients who were operated on without nTMS data (2006-2010) by a matched pair analysis. Patients in the nTMS group showed a significantly lower rate of residual tumor on postoperative MRI (OR 0.3828; 95% CI 0.2062-0.7107). Twelve percent of patients in the nTMS and 1% of patients in the non-nTMS group improved while 75% and 81% of the nTMS and non-nTMS groups, respectively, remained unchanged and 13% and 18% of patients in the nTMS and non-nTMS groups, respectively, deteriorated in postoperative motor function on long-term follow-up (P = .0057). Moreover, the nTMS group showed smaller craniotomies (nTMS 22.4 ± 8.3 cm(2); non-nTMS 26.7 ± 11.3 cm(2); P = .0023). This work increases the level of evidence for preoperative motor mapping by nTMS for rolandic lesions in a group comparison study. We therefore strongly advocate nTMS to become increasingly used for these lesions. However, a randomized trial on the comparison with the gold standard of intraoperative mapping seems mandatory.
BACKGROUND:. Resection of gliomas in or adjacent to the motor system is widely performed with intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM). Despite the fact tha