4.7 Article

Stereoelectroencephalography in presurgical assessment of MRI-negative epilepsy

Journal

BRAIN
Volume 130, Issue -, Pages 3169-3183

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awm218

Keywords

stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG); depth electrodes; intracranial EEG; epilepsy surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

According to most existing literature, the absence of an MRI lesion is generally associated with poorer prognosis in resective epilepsy surgery. Delineation of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) by intracranial recording is usually required but is perceived to be more difficult in MRI negative cases. Most previous studies have used subdural recording and there is relatively less published data on stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). The objective of this study was to report the experience of our group in using SEEG in presurgical evaluation, comparing its effectiveness in normal and lesional MRI cases. One hundred consecutive patients undergoing SEEG for presurgical assessment were studied. Forty-three patients out of one hundred (43) had normal MRI and 57 (57) had lesional MRI. Successful localization was achieved with no difference between these two groups, in 41/43 (95) normal MRI and in 55/57 (96) lesional MRI cases (P = 1.00). Surgery was proposed in 84/100 patients and contraindicated in 16/100 with no significant difference between lesional and MRI-negative groups (P > 0.05). At 1 year follow-up, 11/20 (55) of those having undergone cortectomy in the MRI-negative group and 21/40 (53) in the lesional MRI group were entirely seizure free (P > 0.05) and these proportions were maintained at 2 years follow-up. Significant improvement in seizure control (ILAE outcome groups 14) was achieved in >90 cases with no difference between groups (P > 0.05). Of MRI-negative cases that underwent surgery, 10/23 (43) had focal cortical dysplasia. This series showed that SEEG was equally effective in the presurgical evaluation of MRI-negative and lesional epilepsies.

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