4.7 Review

Definition and diagnostic criteria of sleep-related hypermotor epilepsy

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 86, Issue 19, Pages 1834-1842

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002666

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. IRCCS Institute of Neuroscience of Bologna
  2. Cyberonics
  3. UCB Pharma
  4. EISAI
  5. Ecupharma
  6. Telethon [GGP13200]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The syndrome known as nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy is recognized worldwide and has been studied in a wide range of clinical and scientific settings (epilepsy, sleep medicine, neurosurgery, pediatric neurology, epidemiology, genetics). Though uncommon, it is of considerable interest to practicing neurologists because of complexity in differential diagnosis from more common, benign sleep disorders such as parasomnias, or other disorders like psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Moreover, misdiagnosis can have substantial adverse consequences on patients' lives. At present, there is no consensus definition of this disorder and disagreement persists about its core electroclinical features and the spectrum of etiologies involved. To improve the definition of the disorder and establish diagnostic criteria with levels of certainty, a consensus conference using formal recommended methodology was held in Bologna in September 2014. It was recommended that the name be changed to sleep-related hyper-motor epilepsy (SHE), reflecting evidence that the attacks are associated with sleep rather than time of day, the seizures may arise from extrafrontal sites, and the motor aspects of the seizures are characteristic. The etiology may be genetic or due to structural pathology, but in most cases remains unknown. Diagnostic criteria were developed with 3 levels of certainty: witnessed (possible) SHE, video-documented (clinical) SHE, and video-EEG-documented (confirmed) SHE. The main research gaps involve epidemiology, pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available