nach oben

Erschienen in:

08.01.2018 | Review

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery: technical review in open and minimally invasive approaches

verfasst von: Fabio Cofano, Francesco Zenga, Marco Mammi, Roberto Altieri, Nicola Marengo, Marco Ajello, Paolo Pacca, Antonio Melcarne, Carola Junemann, Alessandro Ducati, Diego Garbossa

Erschienen in: Neurosurgical Review | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Neurophysiological monitoring is of undoubted value for the intraoperative safety of neurosurgical procedures. Widely developed and used for cranial surgery, it is equally as effective, though perhaps less commonly employed, for spinal pathology. The most frequently used techniques for intraoperative monitoring during spinal surgery include somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and electromyography, which can either be spontaneous free-running (sEMG) or triggered (tEMG). The knowledge of the benefits and limitations of each modality is essential in optimising the value of intraoperative monitoring during spinal procedures. This review will analyse the single techniques, their anatomical and physiological basis, their use in spinal surgery as reliable indicators of functional injury, their limits and their application to specific procedures in minimally invasive surgery, such as the lateral transpsoas access for interbody fusion and the divergent trajectory for cortico-pedicular screws. In these particular techniques, because of reduced visual exposure, neuromonitoring is indeed essential to exploit the full potential of minimally invasive surgery, while avoiding damage to nervous structures.

Anderson DG, Wierzbowski LR, Schwartz DM, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ (2002) Pedicle screws with high electrical resistance: a potential source of error with stimulus-evoked EMG. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(14):1577–1581. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200207150-00018 CrossRef

Banagan K, Gelb D, Poelstra K, Ludwig S (2011) Anatomic mapping of lumbar nerve roots during a direct lateral transpsoas approach to the spine: a cadaveric study. Spine 36(11):E687–E691CrossRefPubMed

Benglis DM, Vanni S, Levi AD (2009) An anatomical study of the lumbosacral plexus as related to the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 10:139–144CrossRefPubMed

Bergey DL, Villavicencio AT, Goldstein T, Regan JJ (2004) Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 29(15):1681–1688. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000133643.75795.EF CrossRefPubMed

Bigelow DC, Patterson T, Weber R, Stecker MM, Judy K (2002) Comparison of endotracheal tube and hookwire electrodes for monitoring the vagus nerve. J Clin Monit Comput 17(3/4):217–220. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020729832385 CrossRefPubMed

Block J, Silverstein JW, Ball HT, Mermelstein LE, DeWal HS, Madhok R, Basra SK, Goldstein MJ (2015) Motor evoked potentials for femoral nerve protection in transpsoas lateral access surgery of the spine. Neurodiagn J 55(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2015.1012456 CrossRefPubMed

Bose B, Sestokas AK, Schwartz DM (2007) Neurophysiological detection of iatrogenic C-5 nerve deficit during anterior cervical spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 6(5):381–385. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2007.6.5.381 CrossRefPubMed

Calancie B, Molano MR (2008) Alarm criteria for motor-evoked potentials: what’s wrong with the “presence-or-absence” approach? Spine 33(4):406–414. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181642a2f CrossRefPubMed

Calancie B, Madsen P, Lebwohl N (1994) Stimulus-evoked EMG monitoring during transpedicular lumbosacral spine instrumentation. Initial clinical results. Spine 19(24):2780–2786CrossRefPubMed

10.

Calancie B, Harris W, Broton JG, Alexeeva N, Green BA (1998) “Threshold-level” multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: description of method and comparison to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring. J Neurosurg 88(3):457–470. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1998.88.3.0457 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Chiappa K, Hill R (1997) Short latency somatosensory evoked potentials: methodology. In: Chiappa K (ed) Evoked potentials in clinical medicine. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia

12.

Costa P, Bruno A, Bonzanino M, Massaro F, Caruso L, Vincenzo I, Ciaramitaro P, Montalenti E (2007) Somatosensory- and motor-evoked potential monitoring during spine and spinal cord surgery. Spinal Cord 45(1):86–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101934 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dakwar E, Vale FL, Uribe JS (2011) Trajectory of the main sensory and motor branches of the lumbar plexus outside the psoas muscle related to the lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach. J Neurosurg Spine 14(2):290–295. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.10.SPINE10395 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Deletis V, Sala F (2008) Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin Neurophysiol 119(2):248–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.09.135 CrossRef

15.

Deletis V, Isgum V, Amassian VE (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor evoked potentials in anesthetized humans. Part 1. Recovery time of corticospinal tract direct waves elicited by pairs of transcranial electrical stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol 112(3):438–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00461-8 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Fan D, Schwartz DM, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Albert TJ (2002) Intraoperative neurophysiologic detection of iatrogenic C5 nerve root injury during laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(22):2499–2502. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000031313.90883.29 CrossRef

17.

Gandhi R, Curtis CM, Cohen-Gadol AA (2015) High-resolution direct microstimulation mapping of spinal cord motor pathways during resection of an intramedullary tumor. J Neurosurg Spine 22(2):205–210. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.SPINE1474 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Gunnarsson T, Krassioukov AV, Sarjeant R, Fehlings MG (2004) Real-time continuous intraoperative electromyographic and somatosensory evoked potential recordings in spinal surgery: correlation of clinical and electrophysiologic findings in a prospective, consecutive series of 213 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(6):677–684. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000115144.30607.E9 CrossRef

19.

Hadley MN, Shank CD, Rozzelle CJ, Walters BC (2017) Guidelines for the use of electrophysiological monitoring for surgery of the human spinal column and spinal cord. Neurosurgery 81(5):713–732. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx466 CrossRef

20.

Holland NR, Lukaczyk TA, Riley LH 3rd, Kostuik JP (1998) Higher electrical stimulus intensities are required to activate chronically compressed nerve roots. Implications for intraoperative electromyographic pedicle screw testing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(2):224–227. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199801150-00014 CrossRef

21.

Jimenez JC, Sani S, Braverman B, Deutsch H, Ratliff JK (2005) Palsies of the fifth cervical nerve root after cervical decompression: prevention using continuous intraoperative electromyography monitoring. J Neurosurg Spine 3(2):92–97. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0092 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kalkman CJ, Drummond JC, Kennelly NA, Patel PM, Partridge BL Intraoperative monitoring of tibialis anterior muscle motor evoked responses to transcranial electrical stimulation during partial neuromuscular blockade. Anesth Analg 75:584–589

23.

Khan A, Pearlman RC, Bianchi DA, Hauck KW (1997) Experience with two types of electromyography monitoring electrodes during thyroid surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 18(2):99–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0709(97)90095-8 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kothbauer KF (2007) Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring for intramedullary spinal-cord tumor surgery. Neurophysiol Clin 37(6):407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucli.2007.10.003 CrossRef

25.

Kothbaurer K (2002) Motor evoked potential monitoring for intramedullary spinal cord surgery. In: Deletis V, Shils J (eds) Neurophysiology in neurosurgery. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012209036-3/50006-8 CrossRef

26.

Lall RR, Lall RR, Hauptman JS, Munoz C, Cybulski GR, Koski T, Ganju A, Fessler RG, Smith ZA (2012) Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: indications, efficacy, and role of the preoperative checklist. Neurosurg Focus 33(5):E10. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.FOCUS12235 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journee H, Slappendel R, de Kleuver M (2003) Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: a study of 145 patients. Spine 28(10):1043–1050. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000061995.75709.78 CrossRef

28.

Lenke LG, Padberg AM, Russo MH, Bridwell KH, Gelb DE (1995) Triggered electromyographic threshold for accuracy of pedicle screw placement. An animal model and clinical correlation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(14):1585–1591CrossRef

29.

Loder RT, Thomson GJ, LaMont RL (1991) Spinal cord monitoring in patients with nonidiopathic spinal deformities using somatosensory evoked potentials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(12):1359–1364. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199112000-00003 CrossRef

30.

Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Chiba K (2015) Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory: a finite element study. J Neurosurg Spine 23(4):471–478. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.SPINE141103 CrossRefPubMed

31.

McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Geis WP, Fedder IL (1998) Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. Emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine 23(13):1476–1484. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199807010-00009 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Merton PA, Morton HB (1980) Stimulation of the cerebral cortex in the intact human subject. Nature 285(5762):227. https://doi.org/10.1038/285227a0 CrossRef

33.

Minahan RE, Riley LH 3rd, Lukaczyk T, Cohen DB, Kostuik JP (2000) The effect of neuromuscular blockade on pedicle screw stimulation thresholds. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(19):2526–2530. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200010010-00016 CrossRef

34.

Moro T, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Yaginuma H (2003) An anatomic study of the lumbar plexus with respect to retroperitoneal endoscopic surgery. Spine 28:423–428PubMed

35.

Morota N, Deletis V, Constatini S, Kofler M, Cohen H, Epstein FJ (1997) The role of motor evoked potentials during surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors. Neurosurgery 41(6):1327–1336. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199712000-00017 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Nash CL Jr, Lorig RA, Schatzinger LA, Brown RH (1977) Spinal cord monitoring during operative treatment of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 100–105

37.

Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG, Kanim LE, Sherman JE (1995) Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96(1):6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(94)00235-D CrossRef

38.

Obi T, Mochizuki M, Isobe K, Mizoguchi K, Takatsu M, Nishimura Y (1999) Mechanically elicited nerve root discharge: mechanical irritation and waveform. Acta Neurol Scand 100(3):185–188CrossRefPubMed

39.

Park DK, Lee MJ, Lin EL, Singh K, An HS, Phillips FM (2010) The relationship of intrapsoas nerves during a transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine: anatomic study. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:223–228CrossRef

40.

Parker SL, Amin AG, Farber SH, McGirt MJ, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Bydon A, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF (2011) Ability of electromyographic monitoring to determine the presence of malpositioned pedicle screws in the lumbosacral spine: analysis of 2450 consecutively placed screws. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15(2):130–135. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.3.SPINE101 CrossRef

41.

Quinones-Hinojosa A, Lyon R, Zada G, Lamborn KR, Gupta N, Parsa AT et al (2005) Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function. Neurosurgery 56:982–993PubMed

42.

Quraishi NA, Lewis SJ, Kelleher MO, Sarjeant R, Rampersaud YR, Fehlings MG (2009) Intraoperative multimodality monitoring in adult spinal deformity: analysis of a prospective series of one hundred two cases with independent evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(14):1504–1512. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a87b66 CrossRef

43.

Raynor BL, Lenke LG, Kim Y, Hanson DS, Wilson-Holden TJ, Bridwell KH, Padberg AM (2002) Can triggered electromyograph thresholds predict safe thoracic pedicle screw placement? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(18):2030–2035. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200209150-00012 CrossRef

44.

Raynor BL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Taylor BA, Padberg AM (2007) Correlation between low triggered electromyographic thresholds and lumbar pedicle screw malposition: analysis of 4857 screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(24):2673–2678. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a524f CrossRef

45.

Regev GJ, Chen L, Dhawan M, Lee YP, Garfin SR, Kim CW (2009) Morphometric analysis of the ventral nerve roots and retroperitoneal vessels with respect to the minimally invasive lateral approach in normal and deformed spines. Spine 34:1330–1335CrossRef

46.

Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J (2011) Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine 36(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e1040a CrossRefPubMed

47.

Romstock J, Strauss C, Fahlbusch R (2000) Continuous electromyography monitoring of motor cranial nerves during cerebellopontine angle surgery. J Neurosurg 93(4):586–593. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2000.93.4.0586 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Sala F, Palandri G, Basso E, Lanteri P, Deletis V, Faccioli F, Bricolo A (2006) Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery 58(6):1129–1143. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000215948.97195.58 CrossRef

49.

Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA et al (2009) Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J 9(5):366–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008

50.

Sherrington C (1906) The integrative action of the nervous system. Yale University Press, New Haven

51.

Silverstein J, Mermelstein L, DeWal H, Basra S (2014) Saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials: a novel technique to monitor the femoral nerve during transpsoas lumbar laterale interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(15):1254–1260. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000357

52.

Skinner S, Sala F (2017) Communication and collaboration in spine neuromonitoring: time to expect more, a lot more, from the neurophysiologists. J Neurosurg Spine 27(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.12.SPINE161212 CrossRefPubMed

53.

Skinner S, Holdefer R, McAuliffe JJ, Sala F (2017) Medical error avoidance in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: the communication imperative. J Clin Neurophysiol 34(6):477–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000419 CrossRefPubMed

54.

Sloan T (2002) Anesthesia and motor evoked potential monitoring. In: Deletis V, Shils J (eds) Neurophysiology in neurosurgery, San Diego, Academic Press, pp 452–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012209036-3/50019-6

55.

Stecker MM A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery. Surg. Neurol Int 2012; 3(Suppl 3): S174–S187

56.

Stecker MM, Robertshaw J (2006) Factors affecting reliability of interpretations of intra-operative evoked potentials. J Clin Monit Comput 20(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-005-9006-8 CrossRefPubMed

57.

Stecker MM, Baylor K, Wolfe J, Stevenson M (2011) Acute nerve stretch and the compound motor action potential. J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj 6:4PubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Toleikis RJ (2002) Neurophysiological monitoring during pedicle screw placement. In: Deletis V, Shils J (eds) Neurophysiology in neurosurgery. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012209036-3/50013-5 CrossRef

59.

Toleikis JR (2005) American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative monitoring using somatosensory evoked potentials. A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. J Clin Monit Comput 19(3):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-005-4397-0 CrossRefPubMed

60.

Ulkatan S, Neuwirth M, Bitan F, Minardi C, Kokoszka A, Deletis V (2006) Monitoring of scoliosis surgery with epidurally recorded motor evoked potentials (D wave) revealed false results. Clin Neurophysiol 117(9):2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.05.021 CrossRefPubMed

61.

Uribe JS, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale FL (2010) Defining the safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine 13:260–266CrossRefPubMed

62.

Yen CP, Mosley YI, Uribe JS (2016) Role of minimally-invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity in preventing complications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9(3):309–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9355-6

Titel: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery: technical review in open and minimally invasive approaches
verfasst von: Fabio Cofano
Francesco Zenga
Marco Mammi
Roberto Altieri
Nicola Marengo
Marco Ajello
Paolo Pacca
Antonio Melcarne
Carola Junemann
Alessandro Ducati
Diego Garbossa
Publikationsdatum: 08.01.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Neurosurgical Review / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0344-5607
Elektronische ISSN: 1437-2320
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-017-0939-4

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Accelerated growth of hemangioblastoma in pregnancy: the role of proangiogenic factors and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) in a non-oxygen-dependent pathway

The correlation between gene polymorphisms of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and aneurismal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Gamma Knife radiosurgery for trigeminal neuralgia: when?

Bypass in neurosurgery—indications and techniques

What is the best therapeutic approach to a pediatric patient with a deep-seated brain AVM?

Reproductive epidemiology of glial tumors may reveal novel treatments: high-dose progestins or progesterone antagonists as endocrino-immune modifiers against glioma

Update Chirurgie