4.4 Article

Visual and semiautomated evaluation of epileptogenicity in focal cortical dysplasias - An intracranial EEG study

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages 69-75

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.03.009

Keywords

Focal epilepsy; Epileptogenicity Index; Epilepsy surgery; SEEG

Funding

  1. Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centers funding scheme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The aim of the study was the evaluation of the added value of depth to subdural electrodes in delineating epileptogenicity of focal cortical dysplasias (FCDs) and to test the Epileptogenicity Index (EI) in this setting. Material and methods: Fifteen patients with FCD underwent iEEG with subdural and depth electrodes. Visual/EI analysis was performed in up to three habitual seizures per patient. Results: Visual analysis: Grid onset seizures (n=10) started in electrodes overlying the lesion in 7 and remote from it in 3 cases. Depth onset seizures (n=7) affected only intralesional contacts in 4, intra-and extralesional in 2, and exclusively extralesional in 1 patient. Seizures started in depth and grid contacts simultaneously in 2 cases. EI analysis: The EI completely confirmed visual localization of seizure onset in 8 cases and depicted ictal onset-time accurately in 13. Beta/gamma ictal patterns were most reliably captured. Impact on surgical decision: Resection outline differed from MRI lesion in 7 patients based on grid and in three based on depth electrode information. Discussion: In FCD, seizures can be generated within gyral/deep tissue appearing normal on imaging. Conclusion: Investigating FCD with subdural and depth electrodes is efficient to outline the seizure onset zone. The EI is a helpful additional tool to quantify epileptogenicity. Specific ictal patterns are prerequisite for reliable results. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available