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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Intracranial pathologies during pregnancy pose a significant challenge to both the mother and fetus [1,2,3]. 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 [11,12,13,14,15]. Lesions in eloquent areas require awake craniotomy (AC) for real-time monitoring of neurological functions, including motor, language, and vision [16,17,18,19,20]. 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 [22,23,24], glioma [23, 25,26,27,28], 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).
The articles’ information is summarized in Supplementary Table 2. Of the nine studies included, five (55.6%) were from the USA [39,40,41,42,43], 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 [39,40,41, 43,44,45,46,47]. The awake-awake-awake approach was the most common protocol used in seven studies (77.8%) [40,41,42,43, 45,46,47]. One study (11.1%) used the asleep-awake-asleep protocol [44], and another (11.1%) did not specify their protocol [39].
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 [39,40,41, 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].
Six (66.7%) lesions were in the left hemisphere [39,40,41, 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 [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. 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 [39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. Two (22.2%) studies did not specify their type of monitoring [46, 47].
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.
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, 45,46,47].
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, 58,59,60]. 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 [69,70,71]. 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.
Data availability
Not applicable.
References
Esmaeilzadeh M, Uksul N, Hong B, von Kaisenberg C, Scheinichen D, Lang JM, Hermann EJ, Hillemanns P, Krauss JK (2020) Intracranial emergencies during pregnancy requiring urgent neurosurgical treatment. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 195:105905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105905
Ng J, Kitchen N (2008) Neurosurgery and pregnancy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 79:745. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2007.117002
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 (2023) 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 171:e213–e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.11.139
Zong H, Xu H, Geng Z, Ma C, Ming X, Shang M, Li K, He X, Du H, Zhao J, Cao L (2014) Reproductive factors in relation to risk of brain tumors in women: an updated meta-analysis of 27 independent studies. Tumor Biol 35:11579–11586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2448-1
Moscovici S, Fraifeld S, Cohen JE, Dotan S, Elchalal U, Shoshan Y, Spektor S (2014) Parasellar meningiomas in pregnancy: Surgical results and visual outcomes. World Neurosurg 82:e503–e512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2013.06.019
Elwatidy S, Jamjoom Z, Elgamal E, Abdelwahab A (2011) Management strategies for acute brain lesions presenting during pregnancy: A case series. Br J Neurosurg 25:478–487. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2010.550345
Stevenson CB, Thompson RC (2005) The clinical management of intracranial neoplasms in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.grf.0000153209.70749.d0
Lynch JC, Gouvêa F, Emmerich JC, Kokinovrachos G, Pereira C, Welling L, Kislanov S (2011) Management strategy for brain tumour diagnosed during pregnancy. Br J Neurosurg 25:225–230. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2010.508846
Proskynitopoulos PJ, Lam FC, Sharma S, Young BC, Laviv Y, Kasper EM (2021) A review of the neurosurgical management of brain metastases during pregnancy. Can J Neurol Sci 48:698–707. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2020.254
Cohen-Gadol AA, Friedman JA, Friedman JD, Tubbs RS, Munis JR, Meyer FB (2009) Neurosurgical management of intracranial lesions in the pregnant patient: A 36-year institutional experience and review of the literature. J Neurosurg 111:1150–1157. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.3.Jns081160
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 (2014) Primary brain tumours, meningiomas and brain metastases in pregnancy: Report on 27 cases and review of literature. Eur J Cancer 50:1462–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.018
Zwinkels H, Dörr J, Kloet F, Taphoorn MJ, Vecht CJ (2013) Pregnancy in women with gliomas: A case-series and review of the literature. J Neurooncol 115:293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-013-1229-9
Bateman BT, Olbrecht VA, Berman MF, Minehart RD, Schwamm LH, Leffert LR (2012) Peripartum subarachnoid hemorrhage: Nationwide data and institutional experience. Anesthesiology 116:324–333. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182410b22
Laviv Y, Bayoumi A, Mahadevan A, Young B, Boone M, Kasper EM (2018) Meningiomas in pregnancy: Timing of surgery and clinical outcomes as observed in 104 cases and establishment of a best management strategy. Acta Neurochir 160:1521–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-017-3146-8
Berman D, Touré B (2018) 175C22Neurosurgery in pregnancy. In: Neuroanesthesia: A problem-based learning approach [Internet]. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780190850036.003.0022
Duffau H, Lopes M, Arthuis F, Bitar A, Sichez JP, Van Effenterre R, Capelle L (2005) 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 76:845. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2004.048520
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. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.Neu.0000342405.80881.81
Ruis C (2018) Monitoring cognition during awake brain surgery in adults: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 40:1081–1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2018.1469602
Voets NL, Pretorius P, Birch MD, Apostolopoulos V, Stacey R, Plaha P (2021) Diffusion tractography for awake craniotomy: Accuracy and factors affecting specificity. J Neurooncol 153:547–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-021-03795-7
Foster CH, Morone PJ, Cohen-Gadol A (2019) Awake craniotomy in glioma surgery: Is it necessary? J Neurosurg Sci 63:162–178. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0390-5616.18.04590-3
Mofatteh M, Mashayekhi MS, Arfaie S, Chen Y, Hendi K, Kwan ATH, Honarvar F, Solgi A, Liao X, Ashkan K (2023) Stress, anxiety, and depression associated with awake craniotomy: A systematic review. Neurosurgery 92:225–240. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002224
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 (2022) Effect of awake craniotomy in glioblastoma in eloquent areas (GLIOMAP): A propensity score-matched analysis of an international, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet Oncol 23:802–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00213-3
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdaa111
Li Y-C, Chiu H-Y, Lin Y-J, Chen K-T, Hsu P-W, Huang Y-C, Chen P-Y, Wei K-C (2021) The merits of awake craniotomy for glioblastoma in the left hemispheric eloquent area: One institution experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 200:106343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106343
De Witt Hamer PC, Robles SG, Zwinderman AH, Duffau H, Berger MS (2012) Impact of intraoperative stimulation brain mapping on glioma surgery outcome: A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 30:2559–2565. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.38.4818
Hervey-Jumper SL, Li J, Lau D, Molinaro AM, Perry DW, Meng L, Berger MS (2015) Awake craniotomy to maximize glioma resection: Methods and technical nuances over a 27-year period. J Neurosurg 123:325–339. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.Jns141520
Malekpour M, Cohen-Gadol AA (2015) Interhemispheric transfalcine approach and awake cortical mapping for resection of peri-atrial gliomas associated with the central lobule. J Clin Neurosci 22:383–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2014.07.017
Alimohamadi M, Shirani M, Shariat Moharari R, Pour-Rashidi A, Ketabchi M, Khajavi M, Arami M, Amirjamshidi A (2016) Application of awake craniotomy and intraoperative brain mapping for surgical resection of insular gliomas of the dominant hemisphere. World Neurosurgery 92:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.079
Hall S, Kabwama S, Sadek A-R, Dando A, Roach J, Weidmann C, Grundy P (2021) Awake craniotomy for tumour resection: The safety and feasibility of a simple technique. Interdiscip Neurosurg 24:101070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inat.2020.101070
Bakhshi SK, Jawed N, Shafiq F, Enam SA (2021) Awake craniotomy for resection of intracranial meningioma: First case series from a low- and middle-income country. Cureus 13:e18716. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.18716
Abdulrauf SI (2015) Awake craniotomies for aneurysms, arteriovenous malformations, skull base tumors, high flow bypass, and brain stem lesions. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine 6:8–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-8237.151580
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 (2015) Proposed therapeutic strategy for adult low-grade glioma based on aggressive tumor resection. Neurosurg Focus 38:E7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.10.Focus14651
Upadya M, Saneesh PJ (2016) Anaesthesia for non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy. Indian J Anaesth 60:234–241. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.179445
Li X, Jiang X, Zhao P (2021) Effects of Pregnancy Anesthesia on Fetal Nervous System. Front Pharmacol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.523514
Staneva A, Bogossian F, Pritchard M, Wittkowski A (2015) The effects of maternal depression, anxiety, and perceived stress during pregnancy on preterm birth: A systematic review. Women Birth 28:179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.02.003
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.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2021.01.048
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). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57060613
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
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. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.2-92.v2
Handlogten KS, Sharpe EE, Brost BC, Parney IF, Pasternak JJ (2015) Dexmedetomidine and mannitol for awake craniotomy in a pregnant patient. Anesth Analg 120:1099–1103. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000000710
Meng L, Han SJ, Rollins MD, Gelb AW, Chang EF (2016) Awake brain tumor resection during pregnancy: Decision making and technical nuances. J Clin Neurosci 24:160–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.08.021
Hedayat H, Felbaum DR, Reynolds JE, Janjua RM (2017) Awake craniotomy for the treatment of a cortical pseudoaneurysm in a pregnant patient. Cureus 9:e1921. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1921
Gunasekaran A, Kulbarsh KD, Das A, Voelkel-Johnson C, Patel SJ, Lindhorst S, Yazdani M, Barley J, Rowland NC (2022) Case report: Awake craniotomy during pregnancy for resection of glioblastoma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 216:107218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107218
Kamata K, Fukushima R, Nomura M, Ozaki M (2017) A case of left frontal high-grade glioma diagnosed during pregnancy. JA Clin Rep 3:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40981-017-0090-9
Al Mashani AM, Ali A, Chatterjee N, Suri N, Das S (2018) Awake craniotomy during pregnancy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 30:372–373. https://doi.org/10.1097/ana.0000000000000424
Pawlik J, Tomaszek L, Mazurek H, Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska W (2022) Risk factors and protective factors against Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia-A Single-Center mixed prospective and retrospective cohort study. J Pers Med 12:4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12040597
Kumar D, Siraj S, Ahsan K, Shafiq F (2020) Utilization of awake craniotomy for supra-tentorial tumor resection during pregnancy: A technique useful for fetal-maternal wellbeing. Pak J Med Sci 36:293–295. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.1853
Hilton G, Andrzejowski JC (2007) Prolonged propofol infusions in pregnant neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 19:67–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0b013e31802b31c8
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not151
Troisi R, Bjørge T, Gissler M, Grotmol T, Kitahara CM, Myrtveit Saether SM, Ording AG, Sköld C, Sørensen HT, Trabert B, Glimelius I (2018) The role of pregnancy, perinatal factors and hormones in maternal cancer risk: A review of the evidence. J Intern Med 283:430–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12747
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 (2008) Brain tumor epidemiology: consensus from the brain tumor epidemiology consortium. Cancer 113:1953–1968. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23741
Taylan E, Akdemir A, Zeybek B, Ergenoglu AM, Yeniel AO (2015) Recurrent brain tumor with hydrocephalus in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 41:464–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12546
Karbhari N, Thomas AA (2022) Clinical management of brain tumors in pregnancy. Curr Opin Oncol. 34(6):691–697. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000894
Ravindra VM, Braca JA 3rd, Jensen RL, Duckworth EA (2015) Management of intracranial pathology during pregnancy: Case example and review of management strategies. Surg Neurol Int 6:43. https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.153845
Giannini A, Bricchi M (1999) Posterior fossa surgery in the sitting position in a pregnant patient with cerebellopontine angle meningioma. Br J Anaesth 82:941–944. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/82.6.941
Tewari KS, Cappuccini F, Asrat T, Flamm BL, Carpenter SE, Disaia PJ, Quilligan EJ (2000) Obstetric emergencies precipitated by malignant brain tumors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:1215–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(00)70188-8
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 775: Nonobstetric Surgery During Pregnancy (2019). Obstet Gynecol 133:e285-e286.https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003174
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 (2023) Awake craniotomy in Africa: A scoping review of literature and proposed solutions to tackle challenges. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002453
Mofatteh M, Mashayekhi MS, Arfaie S, Chen Y, Mirza AB, Fares J, Bandyopadhyay S, Henich E, Liao X, Bernstein M (2022) Augmented and virtual reality usage in awake craniotomy: A systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 46:19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01929-7
Mofatteh M (2021) Neurosurgery and artificial intelligence. AIMS Neurosci 8:477-495.https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2021025
McAuliffe N, Nicholson S, Rigamonti A, Hare GMT, Cusimano M, Garavaglia M, Pshonyak I, Das S (2018) Awake craniotomy using dexmedetomidine and scalp blocks: A retrospective cohort study. Can J Anaesth 65:1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-018-1178-z
Wang YC, Lee CC, Takami H, Shen S, Chen KT, Wei KC, Wu MH, Worrell G, Chen PY (2019) Awake craniotomies for epileptic gliomas: intraoperative and postoperative seizure control and prognostic factors. J Neurooncol 142:577–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03131-0
Vigren P, Eriksson M, Duffau H, Wretman A, Lindehammar H, Milos P, Richter J, Karlsson T, Gauffin H (2020) Experiences of awake surgery in non-tumoural epilepsy in eloquent localizations. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 199:106251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106251
Groshev A, Padalia D, Patel S, Garcia-Getting R, Sahebjam S, Forsyth PA, Vrionis FD, Etame AB (2017) Clinical outcomes from maximum-safe resection of primary and metastatic brain tumors using awake craniotomy. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 157:25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.03.017
Wang LP, Paech MJ (2008) Neuroanesthesia for the pregnant woman. Anesth Analg 107:193–200. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31816c8888
Goyal S, Yadav A, Madan R, Chitkara A, Singh R, Khosla D, Kumar N (2022) Managing brain tumors in pregnancy: The oncologist’s struggle with maternal-fetal conflict. J Cancer Res Ther 18:5–18. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1343_20
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes349
Kinsella SM (2003) Lateral tilt for pregnant women: why 15 degrees? Anaesthesia 58:835–836. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03397.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdad058
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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.664235
Huang J, Zeng C, Xiao J, Zhao D, Tang H, Wu H, Chen J (2017) Association between depression and brain tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8:94932–94943. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19843
Oh TK, Song I-A, Park HY, Jeon Y-T (2021) Depression and mortality after craniotomy for brain tumor removal: A Nationwide cohort study in South Korea. J Affect Disord 295:291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.058
van Bogaert L-J, Dhai A (2008) Ethical challenges of treating the critically ill pregnant patient. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 22:983–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2008.06.012
Burkle CM, Tessmer-Tuck J, Wijdicks EF (2015) Medical, legal, and ethical challenges associated with pregnancy and catastrophic brain injury. Int J Gynecol Obstet 129:276–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.12.011
Prontera A, Baroni S, Marudi A, Valzania F, Feletti A, Benuzzi F, Bertellini E, Pavesi G (2017) Awake craniotomy anesthetic management using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remifentanil. Drug Des Dev Ther 11:593–598. https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.S124736
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt199
Schwab R, Anic K, Hasenburg A (2021) Cancer and Pregnancy: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers 13(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13123048
Cardonick E, Iacobucci A (2004) Use of chemotherapy during human pregnancy. Lancet Oncol 5(5):283–291
Koutras A, Ntounis T, Fasoulakis Z, Papalios T, Pittokopitou S, Prokopakis I et al (2022) Cancer treatment and immunotherapy during pregnancy. Pharmaceutics 14:10. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14102080
Evans AC, Nelson MB, Dhall G (2015) Pregnancy in a patient with a malignant brain tumor taking temozolomide: Case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 32(5):326–328
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
Azim HA Jr, Peccatori FA, Pavlidis N (2010) 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 36:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.11.007
Cirak B, Kiymaz N, Kerman M, Tahta K (2003) Neurosurgical procedures in pregnancy. Acta Cirurgica Brasileira 18. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502003000100002
Wu J, Ma YH, Wang TL (2013) Glioma in the third trimester of pregnancy: Two cases and a review of the literature. Oncol Lett 5:943–946. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2013.1106
Funding
No funding was obtained for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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.
Corresponding author
Ethics 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.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mofatteh, M., Mashayekhi, M.S., Arfaie, S. et al. Awake craniotomy during pregnancy: A systematic review of the published literature. Neurosurg Rev 46, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-02187-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-023-02187-x