4.3 Article

Panayiotopoulos syndrome and benign partial epilepsy with centro-temporal spikes: A comparative incidence study

Journal

SEIZURE-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPILEPSY
Volume 57, Issue -, Pages 66-69

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.03.002

Keywords

Seizure; Incidence; BECTS; Panayiotopoulos syndrome; Child

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To compare the de novo incidence of Panayiotopoulos syndrome (PS, early-onset childhood occipital epilepsy) and a common epilepsy syndrome, benign epilepsy with centro-temporal spikes (BECTS), in children and young people. Methods: The incidence of PS and BECTS was recorded over 16 months in a population of children and young people (aged <16 years) living within a specific geographic area and epilepsy network within the North West of England and North Wales and the catchment area of the tertiary paediatric epilepsy centre. Monthly data collection proformas were circulated to the paediatricians and paediatric neurologists responsible for the evaluation of epilepsy in children within this area. This also included monthly reminders of the electro-clinical criteria for these syndromes. EEGs were undertaken in the neurophysiology department of the tertiary paediatric epilepsy centre. The departmental EEG database on all <16 year olds that underwent an EEG during the study period was examined to identify additional patients that may not have been reported via a proforma-reporting system. Results: The incidence of PS and BECTS was found to be 0.8 and 6.1 per 100,000 <16 year olds, respectively. The ages at seizure onset and diagnosis were similar for BECTS and PS. Conclusion: This study is the first to determine a comparative incidence of PS and BELTS. The findings suggest BECTS is eight times more common than PS and that the incidence of PS is lower than previously suggested. Crown Copyright (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Epilepsy Association. 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available