Usefulness of Intraoperative Ultra Low-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Glioma Surgery

Abstract

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the usefulness of a mobile, intraoperative 0.15-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner in glioma surgery. Methods: We analyzed our prospectively collected database of patients with glial tumors who underwent tumor resection with the use of an intraoperative ultra low-field MRI scanner (PoleStar N-20; Odin Medical Technologies, Yokneam, Israel/Medtronic, Louisville, CO). Sixty-three patients with World Health Organization Grade II to IV tumors were included in the study. All patients were subjected to postoperative 1.5-T imaging to confirm the extent of resection. Results: Intraoperative image quality was sufficient for navigation and resection control in both high-and low-grade tumors. Primarily enhancing tumors were best detected on T1-weighted imaging, whereas fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequences proved best for nonenhancing tumors. Intraoperative resection control led to further tumor resection in 12 (28.6%) of 42 patients with contrast-enhancing tumors and in 10(47.6%) of 21 patients with noncontrast-enhancing tumors. In contrast-enhancing tumors, further resection led to an increased rate of complete tumor resection (71.2 versus 52.4%), and the surgical goal of gross total removal or subtotal resection was achieved in all cases (100.0%). In patients with noncontrast-enhancing tumors, the surgical goal was achieved in 19 (90.5%) of 21 cases, as intraoperative MRI findings were inconsistent with postoperative high-field imaging in 2 cases. Conclusion: The use of the PoleStar N-20 intraoperative ultra low-field MRI scanner helps to evaluate the extent of resection in glioma surgery. Further tumor resection after intraoperative scanning leads to an increased rate of complete tumor resection, especially in patients with contrast-enhancing tumors. However, in noncontrast-enhancing tumors, the intraoperative visualization of a complete resection seems less specific, when compared with postoperative 1.5-T MRI.