In this issue of Acta Neurochirurgica, Hansen et al. [9] proposed a new anaesthesiologic protocol for intrasurgical mapping “Awake craniotomies without any sedation: the awake-awake-awake technique”. They reported a series of 50 patients who underwent such “awake-awake-awake” craniotomy for resection of 49 tumors (46 gliomas, three metastasis) and one cavernoma in eloquent areas. Patients did not require any sedation and no or only low-dose opioid treatment. The authors have therefore to be congratulated for their results. Indeed, beyond the methodological aspect, the main message is that intraoperative electrical mapping should be universally implemented as standard of care for glioma surgery. This was demonstrated in a meta-analysis with 8091 adult patients who underwent resective surgery for supratentorial infiltrative glioma. It was shown that glioma resections using intrasurgical stimulation mapping were associated with fewer late severe neurologic deficits (less than 3.5 %) and more extensive resection, while they involved eloquent locations more frequently [3]. In this state of mind, awake surgery allows mapping of sensory-motor, visual, language and other cognitive functions, with a low rate of permanent neurologic worsening—less than 2 % in the recent series [4, 7, 10]. This is the reason why the awake period should be optimal, with a perfect collaboration of the patient. As a consequence, several issues may be discussed regarding the technical procedure advocated by Hansen et al. First of all, according to the authors, it seems that the classical “asleep-awake-asleep” technique has many drawbacks, side effects and risks. However, our team has recently published a prospective series with 140 patients who were operated on for a glioma involving eloquent area using “asleepawake-asleep” procedure, and demonstrated that no seizures, no swelling, no severe permanent neurological deficit and no mortality occurred (only one case of aspiration of gastric contents with a favorable outcome) [2]. These data confirmed the results we have already published in a previous retrospective study [4], demonstrating the reliability of “awake-asleep-awake” protocol. Nonetheless, in their experience, Hansen et al. [9] have reported a high rate of 16 % of seizures using their technique, with 16 % of new neurological deficits—which is a high rate in comparison with the recent literature (see above). In addition, they have also claimed that patients undergoing awake craniotomies had “anxiety and fears”, due to “terrifying noises and surroundings, immobility, loss of control, and the feeling of helplessness and being left alone”. Yet, in a recent prospective European Low Grade Glioma Network multicenter study with 105 patients, awake-asleepawake surgery was used in the vast majority of cases (eight operations were performed according to an asleep-awake protocol, but never using awake-awake-awake technique) [1]. We demonstrated that awake surgery was well tolerated, as neither intraoperative nor postoperative assessment revealed major disadvantages. Especially, pain levels on a 10-cm visual analogue scale were between 1.3 cm and 2.1 cm, while levels of anxiety were between 2.2 cm and 2.6 cm. In the same vein, Deras et al. observed only 0.7 of cooperation problem [2]. Thus, these findings demonstrate that asleep-awake-asleep protocol is also reproducible among institutions. H. Duffau (*) Department of Neurosurgery, Hopital Gui de Chauliac, Montpellier University Medical Center, 80 Av Augustin Fliche, 34295 Montpellier, France e-mail: h-duffau@chu-montpellier.fr