With these caveats clarified in a modified version, the paper is valuable and could be published.
when one reads it initially it would appear that there are many different modalities available for intraoperative imaging. However, the PET scan does not appear to have actually been used for intraoperative repeat imaging to assess resection, and fluoroscopy and 3D reconstructions using Brain Lab software are standard fare in many operating rooms. Intraoperative angiography might have been used in the case of vascular injury but this also is available in many institutions. The authors appear to really only use CT and MRI intraoperatively, with the other modalities imported preoperatively into the Brain Lab navigational system. 3D reconstructions of newly acquired data is a capability of the software, and is available in many places. Thus it would be helpful for the authors to clarify this. The AMIGO suite has great capabilities, but when it comes to intraoperative imaging, it is CT and MRI scans that are made, and then using Brain Lab and possibly other software, that information is processed and redisplayed including 3D reconstructions. Making this clear is important for others who either use the technique or who want to do so. All that is needed is easy intra-operative access to CT and MR imaging and the ability to import and reconstruct the data real time. That is plenty and a challenge for many, but the other imaging modalities used are either standard fare in many centers (x-ray imaging, endoscopy) or do not need to be in adjacent rooms (PET scanning and angiography (can be done in the primary Or). This does not detract from the value of the technique, but it is important to clarify that what really is happening is a variety of preoperative imaging is imported and co-registered into the Brain Lab, and then intraoperative MR and occasionally CT data is again obtained and processed and analyzed.