Next Article in Journal
Neural Mechanisms of Visual–Spatial Judgment Behavior under Visual and Auditory Constraints: Evidence from an Electroencephalograph during Handgun Shooting
Previous Article in Journal
Low-Grade Gliomas: Histological Subtypes, Molecular Mechanisms, and Treatment Strategies
Previous Article in Special Issue
Applied Fence-Post Techniques Using Deep Electrodes Instead of Catheters for Resection of Glioma Complicated with Frequent Epileptic Seizures: A Case Report
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Neuroimaging of Brain Tumor Surgery and Epilepsy

Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3, Asahi-machi, Abeno-ku, Osaka City 545-8585, Osaka, Japan
Brain Sci. 2023, 13(12), 1701;
Submission received: 23 November 2023 / Accepted: 6 December 2023 / Published: 10 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neuroimaging of Brain Tumor Surgery and Epilepsy)
To make the best clinical judgements, surgeons need to integrate information acquired via multimodal imaging. For brain tumor surgery, the tumor’s location, size and origin (intra-axial or extra-axial) should be examined with preoperative computed tomography and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The precise estimation of a tumor’s pathology is also important. For surgical treatment, surrounding structures such as vessels, nerves, eloquent cortices and related white matter tracts should be evaluated to avoid unwanted damage due to surgery. Thereafter, the best surgical approaches should be selected. Recently, endoscopic surgery has been introduced and is becoming popular, especially in the fields of pituitary surgery [1,2] and skull base surgery [3,4]. For epilepsy surgery, in addition to these structural imaging techniques, neurophysiological information acquired via electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography and functional information acquired via positron emission tomography (PET) are necessary for decision making. The surgical goal in epilepsy surgery is to control the patient’s seizures and enable them to continue their usual daily activities. Then, in addition to surgery with craniotomy, neuromodulation surgeries such as vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and responsive neurostimulation are considered on a patient-by-patient basis [5].
The main aims of this Special Issue, entitled “Neuroimaging of Brain Tumor Surgery and Epilepsy”, were to collect clinical articles about preoperative and postoperative neuroimaging and to share the rare but educational case reports based on clinical experiences. As a result, two research articles and four case reports were published in this Special Issue.
First, Takayama Y et al. published a research article about surgical strategies and seizure and neurocognitive outcomes for low-grade epilepsy-associated tumors (LEATs) on the temporal lobe. Surgical strategies for LEATs and the consensus regarding hippocampal resection are still widely debated in epilepsy surgery [6,7,8,9,10]. They concluded that additional hippocampal resection might result in postoperative language dysfunction. This article offered surgeons a new insight into clinical judgement when removing LEATs on the temporal lobe [11].
Second, Uda H et al. published a research paper about the visualization of resected areas for skull base meningioma, comparing conventional transcranial microsurgery [12,13,14] and endonasal endoscopic surgery [15,16,17]. For the visualization, they used a novel computational method called “Voxel-Based-Lesion Mapping”. They clearly demonstrated a border between transcranial surgery and endoscopic endonasal surgery. The border closely matched a circle connecting the neural foramens (optic canal, foramen rotundum, foramen ovale, internal auditory canal, jugular foramen and hypoglossal canal). Their results might be helpful for surgeons when selecting better surgical approaches [18].
Nakae S et al. published a case report regarding the usefulness of depth electrodes used as fence posts. The role of fence posts is to make a margin of removal in brain tumor and epilepsy surgery. Conventionally, various kinds of rubber or plastic tubes are utilized as fence posts, which are usually inserted under the guidance of neuronavigation [19,20,21,22]. Not only do they have a conventional role as an anatomical landmark, but they also serve as electrophysiological information to fence posts. Particularly when operating on low-grade gliomas, surgeons should consider the control of seizures in addition to the tumor removal when making a surgical decision. Their method might offer important intraoperative information for better seizure outcomes [23].
Kawashima T et al. published a case report about rare postoperative hemorrhagic complications after stereotactic electroencephalography (SEEG). Hemorrhagic complications are the main concerns after SEEG [24,25,26,27,28]. Previously, among various types of hemorrhagic complications, intraparenchymal hemorrhage had generally been thought to be the result of direct vessel injury caused by a puncture needle. However, the authors’ postoperative imaging suggested that the location of the damaged artery was far from the puncture needle. They speculated that the cause of the hemorrhage was the excessive stretching of arachnoid trabeculae, caused by the puncture needle. Their results might have important implications for epilepsy surgeons when planning SEEG [29].
Nakae S et al. also published a case report about the visualization of the vagal nerve using CT angiography and MRI for the implantation of a vagal nerve stimulator [30,31]. As they described, understanding the running course of the vagus nerve is very important for safe surgery. Usually, the vagus nerve runs between the common carotid artery and the internal jugular vein; however, in some cases, it runs below or above these vessels [32], and it takes surgeons much longer to detect the vagus nerve. They fused CT angiography and MRI obtained preoperatively and colored the vagus nerve. Their idea might lead to reductions in complication rates and surgical times for the implantation of vagus nerve stimulators [33].
Yamazaki K et al. published a case report about rare frontal encephaloceles presenting with epilepsy treated surgically. “Encephaloceles” are known to be associated with epilepsy, but mostly, they are located in the temporal lobe [34,35,36,37,38,39] and are rarely located in the frontal lobe [40,41]. The authors demonstrated the clear findings of the MRI, PET and electroencephalography of rare encephaloceles in frontal lobes and their successful surgical treatment via frontal lobectomy. Also, they reviewed previous research regarding encephaloceles with epilepsy. This report might be an important reference for surgeons when experiencing the same clinical situations [42].
I believe that all of the articles in this Special Issue are valuable and will have important implications for clinicians in relation to brain tumor surgery and epilepsy.


We thank all the authors (Takayama Y et al., Uda H et al., Nakae S et al. Kawashima T et al., Nakae S et al., and Yamazaki et al.) of the studies included in our Special Issue.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. Candy, N.G.; Ovenden, C.; Jukes, A.K.; Wormald, P.J.; Psaltis, A.J. The learning curve for endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery: A systematic review. Neurosurg. Rev. 2023, 46, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guinto, G.; Guinto-Nishimura, G.Y.; Sangrador-Deitos, M.V.; Uribe-Pacheco, R.; Soto-Martinez, R.; Gallardo, D.; Guinto, P.; Vargas, A.; Aréchiga, N. Current and Future Perspectives of Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas: A Narrative Review. Arch. Med. Res. 2023, 102872, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Borg, A.; Kirkman, M.A.; Choi, D. Endoscopic Endonasal Anterior Skull Base Surgery: A Systematic Review of Complications During the Past 65 Years. World Neurosurg. 2016, 95, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prevedello, D.M.; Ditzel Filho, L.F.; Solari, D.; Carrau, R.L.; Kassam, A.B. Expanded endonasal approaches to middle cranial fossa and posterior fossa tumors. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2010, 21, 621–635, vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ryvlin, P.; Rheims, S.; Hirsch, L.J.; Sokolov, A.; Jehi, L. Neuromodulation in epilepsy: State-of-the-art approved therapies. Lancet Neurol. 2021, 20, 1038–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Uda, T.; Kunihiro, N.; Nakajo, K.; Kuki, I.; Fukuoka, M.; Ohata, K. Seizure freedom from temporal lobe epilepsy with mesial temporal lobe tumor by tumor removal alone without hippocampectomy despite remaining abnormal discharges on intraoperative electrocorticography: Report of two pediatric cases and reconsideration of the surgical strategy. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2018, 9, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yu, H.Y.; Lin, C.F.; Chou, C.C.; Lu, Y.J.; Hsu, S.P.C.; Lee, C.C.; Chen, C. Outcomes of hippocampus-sparing lesionectomy for temporal lobe epilepsy and the significance of intraoperative hippocampography. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2021, 132, 746–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morioka, T.; Hashiguchi, K.; Nagata, S.; Miyagi, Y.; Yoshida, F.; Shono, T.; Mihara, F.; Koga, H.; Sasaki, T. Additional hippocampectomy in the surgical management of intractable temporal lobe epilepsy associated with glioneuronal tumor. Neurol. Res. 2007, 29, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gleissner, U.; Helmstaedter, C.; Schramm, J.; Elger, C.E. Memory outcome after selective amygdalohippocampectomy: A study in 140 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2002, 43, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Morris, H.H.; Matkovic, Z.; Estes, M.L.; Prayson, R.A.; Comair, Y.G.; Turnbull, J.; Najm, I.; Kotagal, P.; Wyllie, E. Ganglioglioma and intractable epilepsy: Clinical and neurophysiologic features and predictors of outcome after surgery. Epilepsia 1998, 39, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Takayama, Y.; Ikegaya, N.; Iijima, K.; Kimura, Y.; Kosugi, K.; Yokosako, S.; Kaneko, Y.; Yamamoto, T.; Iwasaki, M. Is Hippocampal Resection Necessary for Low-Grade Epilepsy-Associated Tumors in the Temporal Lobe? Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ichinose, T.; Goto, T.; Ishibashi, K.; Takami, T.; Ohata, K. The role of radical microsurgical resection in multimodal treatment for skull base meningioma. J. Neurosurg. 2010, 113, 1072–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Morisako, H.; Goto, T.; Ohata, K. Petroclival meningiomas resected via a combined transpetrosal approach: Surgical outcomes in 60 cases and a new scoring system for clinical evaluation. J. Neurosurg. 2015, 122, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Goto, T.; Ohata, K. Surgical Resectability of Skull Base Meningiomas. Neurol. Med. Chir. 2016, 56, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Schwartz, T.H.; Morgenstern, P.F.; Anand, V.K. Lessons learned in the evolution of endoscopic skull base surgery. J. Neurosurg. 2019, 130, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Carnevale, J.A.; Pandey, A.; Ramirez-Loera, C.; Goldberg, J.L.; Bander, E.D.; Henderson, F.; Niogi, S.N.; Tabaee, A.; Kacker, A.; Anand, V.K.; et al. Endonasal, supraorbital, and transorbital approaches: Minimal access endoscope-assisted surgical approaches for meningiomas in the anterior and middle cranial fossae. J. Neurosurg. 2023, 1–9, Publish Before Print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bove, I.; Cheok, S.; Ruzevick, J.J.; Zada, G. Endoscopic Endonasal and Keyhole Surgery for Skull Base Meningiomas. Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2023, 34, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uda, H.; Uda, T.; Kinoshita, M.; Kishima, H.; Tanoue, Y.; Nagahama, A.; Kawashima, T.; Ohata, H.; Nakajo, K.; Morisako, H.; et al. Visualization of Resected Area in Endonasal Endoscopic Approach versus Transcranial Approach for Skull Base Meningiomas by Voxel-Based-Lesion Mapping. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ohue, S.; Kohno, S.; Inoue, A.; Yamashita, D.; Matsumoto, S.; Suehiro, S.; Kumon, Y.; Kikuchi, K.; Ohnishi, T. Surgical results of tumor resection using tractography-integrated navigation-guided fence-post catheter techniques and motor-evoked potentials for preservation of motor function in patients with glioblastomas near the pyramidal tracts. Neurosurg. Rev. 2015, 38, 293–306, discussion 306–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Fujii, Y.; Ogiwara, T.; Goto, T.; Kanaya, K.; Hara, Y.; Hanaoka, Y.; Hardian, R.F.; Hongo, K.; Horiuchi, T. Microscopic Navigation-Guided Fence Post Technique for Maximal Tumor Resection During Glioma Surgery. World Neurosurg. 2021, 151, e355–e362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kajiwara, K.; Yoshikawa, K.; Ideguchi, M.; Nomura, S.; Fujisawa, H.; Akimura, T.; Kato, S.; Fujii, M.; Suzuki, M. Navigation-guided fence-post tube technique for resection of a brain tumor: Technical note. Minim. Invasive Neurosurg. 2010, 53, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yoshikawa, K.; Kajiwara, K.; Morioka, J.; Fujii, M.; Tanaka, N.; Fujisawa, H.; Kato, S.; Nomura And, S.; Suzuki, M. Improvement of functional outcome after radical surgery in glioblastoma patients: The efficacy of a navigation-guided fence-post procedure and neurophysiological monitoring. J. Neurooncol. 2006, 78, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nakae, S.; Kumon, M.; Teranishi, T.; Ohba, S.; Hirose, Y. Applied Fence-Post Techniques Using Deep Electrodes Instead of Catheters for Resection of Glioma Complicated with Frequent Epileptic Seizures: A Case Report. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mullin, J.P.; Shriver, M.; Alomar, S.; Najm, I.; Bulacio, J.; Chauvel, P.; Gonzalez-Martinez, J. Is SEEG safe? A systematic review and meta-analysis of stereo-electroencephalography-related complications. Epilepsia 2016, 57, 386–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. McGovern, R.A.; Ruggieri, P.; Bulacio, J.; Najm, I.; Bingaman, W.E.; Gonzalez-Martinez, J.A. Risk analysis of hemorrhage in stereo-electroencephalography procedures. Epilepsia 2019, 60, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Agashe, S.; Brinkmann, B.H.; Cox, B.C.; Wong-Kisiel, L.; Van Gompel, J.J.; Marsh, R.W.; Miller, K.J.; Krecke, K.N.; Britton, J.W. Implications of intracranial hemorrhage associated with stereo-EEG. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2023, 155, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Willems, L.M.; Reif, P.S.; Spyrantis, A.; Cattani, A.; Freiman, T.M.; Seifert, V.; Wagner, M.; You, S.J.; Schubert-Bast, S.; Bauer, S.; et al. Invasive EEG-electrodes in presurgical evaluation of epilepsies: Systematic analysis of implantation-, video-EEG-monitoring- and explantation-related complications, and review of literature. Epilepsy Behav. 2019, 91, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Miller, C.; Schatmeyer, B.; Landazuri, P.; Uysal, U.; Nazzaro, J.; Kinsman, M.J.; Camarata, P.J.; Ulloa, C.M.; Hammond, N.; Pearson, C.; et al. sEEG for expansion of a surgical epilepsy program: Safety and efficacy in 152 consecutive cases. Epilepsia Open 2021, 6, 694–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kawashima, T.; Uda, T.; Koh, S.; Yindeedej, V.; Ishino, N.; Ichinose, T.; Arima, H.; Sakuma, S.; Goto, T. Intraparenchymal and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Stereotactic Electroencephalography Caused by Indirect Adjacent Arterial Injury: Illustrative Case. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kawai, K.; Tanaka, T.; Baba, H.; Bunker, M.; Ikeda, A.; Inoue, Y.; Kameyama, S.; Kaneko, S.; Kato, A.; Nozawa, T.; et al. Outcome of vagus nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: The first three years of a prospective Japanese registry. Epileptic Disord. 2017, 19, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Penry, J.K.; Dean, J.C. Prevention of intractable partial seizures by intermittent vagal stimulation in humans: Preliminary results. Epilepsia 1990, 31 (Suppl. S2), S40–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Park, J.K.; Jeong, S.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Lim, G.C.; Chang, J.W. Variations in the course of the cervical vagus nerve on thyroid ultrasonography. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2011, 32, 1178–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Nakae, S.; Kumon, M.; Katagata, A.; Murayama, K.; Hirose, Y. Vagus Nerve Visualization Using Fused Images of 3D-CT Angiography and MRI as Preoperative Evaluation for Vagus Nerve Stimulation. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ramos-Fresnedo, A.; Domingo, R.A.; McGeary, R.C.; Sirven, J.I.; Feyissa, A.M.; Tatum, W.; Ritaccio, A.L.; Middlebrooks, E.H.; Grewal, S.S. Encephalocele-Associated Drug-Resistant Epilepsy of Adult Onset: Diagnosis, Management, and Outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2021, 151, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Smith, K.M.; Kanth, K.M.; Krecke, K.N.; Alden, E.C.; Patel, J.S.; Witte, R.J.; Van Gompel, J.J.; So, E.; Britton, J.W.; Cascino, G.D.; et al. Drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy with temporal encephaloceles: How far to resect. Epilepsy Behav. 2023, 148, 109472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Agashe, S.; Lundstrom, B.N.; Brinkmann, B.H.; So, E.; Cascino, G.D.; Gregg, N.; Marsh, W.R.; Cross, M.; Van Gompel, J.J.; Smith, K.M. Temporal encephalocele: An epileptogenic focus confirmed by direct intracranial electroencephalography. Epilepsy Behav. Rep. 2023, 22, 100601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Buraniqi, E.; Guerin, J.B.; Miller, K.J.; Van Gompel, J.J.; Krecke, K.; Wirrell, E.C.; Nickels, K.C.; Payne, E.T.; Wong-Kisiel, L. Temporal Encephalocele: A Treatable Etiology of Drug-Resistant Pediatric Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Pediatr. Neurol. 2023, 142, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Samudra, N.; Armour, E.; Gonzalez, H.; Mattingly, D.; Haas, K.; Singh, P.; Sonmezturk, H.; Gallagher, M.; Crudele, A.; Nobis, W.; et al. Epilepsy with anterior temporal encephaloceles: Baseline characteristics, post-surgical outcomes, and comparison to mesial temporal sclerosis. Epilepsy Behav. 2023, 139, 109061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jagtap, S.A.; Kurwale, N.; Patil, S.; Bapat, D.; Joshi, A.; Chitnis, S.; Deshmukh, Y.; Nilegaonkar, S. Temporal encephalocele: A rare but treatable cause of temporal lobe epilepsy. Epileptic Disord. 2022, 24, 1073–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Atli, B.; Rath, S.; Burtscher, J.; Hainfellner, J.A.; Hametner, S. Frontal intradiploic encephalocele in a 44-year-old male patient: Illustrative case. J. Neurosurg. Case Lessons 2022, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Faulkner, H.J.; Sandeman, D.R.; Love, S.; Likeman, M.J.; Nunez, D.A.; Lhatoo, S.D. Epilepsy surgery for refractory epilepsy due to encephalocele: A case report and review of the literature. Epileptic Disord. 2010, 12, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Yamazaki, K.; Kanaya, K.; Uda, T.; Fukuyama, T.; Nishioka, M.; Hoshino, Y.; Kaneko, T.; Hardian, R.F.; Yamazaki, D.; Kuwabara, H.; et al. Frontal Encephalocele Plus Epilepsy: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Uda, T. Neuroimaging of Brain Tumor Surgery and Epilepsy. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 1701.

AMA Style

Uda T. Neuroimaging of Brain Tumor Surgery and Epilepsy. Brain Sciences. 2023; 13(12):1701.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Uda, Takehiro. 2023. "Neuroimaging of Brain Tumor Surgery and Epilepsy" Brain Sciences 13, no. 12: 1701.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop