Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
A Standardized Protocol for Functional Motor Mapping Using Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: February 27, 2026
Low-frequency bipolar versus high-frequency monopolar cortical and subcortical motor mapping in craniotomies for
William D Chow1, Ali Gharibi Loron2, Michael B Keough2
11Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester.
Objective:
Maximal safe resection of intra-axial brain tumors near the motor cortex is aided by intraoperative motor mapping. Here, the authors compared outcomes in patients undergoing either low-frequency bipolar stimulation (LFBS) or high-frequency monopolar stimulation (HFMS) for cortical and/or subcortical motor mapping during brain tumor resection.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing an asleep craniotomy with motor mapping or an awake craniotomy with motor and speech mapping with a single surgeon was performed. Three cohorts were compared: 1) asleep LFBS (AsLFBS), 2) awake LFBS (AwLFBS; motor + speech mapping), and 3) asleep HFMS. HFMS mapping was not used for awake craniotomies.
Results:
A total of 284 patients who underwent 300 craniotomies with motor mapping were identified. No significant differences in permanent neurological deficits (p = 0.377) or extent of resection (EOR) of nonenhancing tumors (p = 0.453) were identified between LFBS or HFMS motor mapping cases. Both EOR (92.7% vs 83.5%, p = 0.035) and permanent neurological deficits (7.6% vs 3.3%) occurred more frequently in enhancing tumors with LFBS, although the latter was not statistically significant. HFMS was associated with higher rates of subcortical motor pathway identification (p = 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative seizures (p = 0.003) compared with LFBS. Previous resection (HR 0.46, p = 0.003) and a higher cortical threshold (HR 0.95, p = 0.023) were significantly associated with longer survival, while preoperative aphasia (HR 2.24, p = 0.022), hospital length of stay (HR 1.1, p = 0.005), an insular-based tumor (HR 3.5, p = 0.021), and a histological diagnosis of glioblastoma (HR 2.9, p = 0.001) were negative predictors. Interestingly, overall FLAIR EOR was significantly associated with a marginally decreased overall survival (HR 1.01, p = 0.011).
Conclusions:
No significant differences in postoperative neurological deficits were found between LFBS and HFMS paradigms. HFMS may identify subcortical motor fibers more reliably while resulting in significantly fewer intraoperative seizures. Although LFBS was associated with greater EOR of contrast-enhancing tumors, it may also be associated with higher rates of postoperative deficits, perhaps reflecting less reliable identification of subcortical motor fibers.
