4.5 Article

Surgical resection for intractable epilepsy in double cortex syndrome yields inadequate results

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 42, Issue 9, Pages 1124-1129

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2001.39900.x

Keywords

subcortical band heterotopia; double cortex; surgery; intractable epilepsy; MRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To analyze the results of surgical treatment of intractable epilepsy in patients with subcortical band heterotopia, or double cortex syndrome, a diffuse neuronal migration disorder. Methods: We studied eight patients (five women) with double cortex syndrome and intractable epilepsy. All had a comprehensive presurgical evaluation including prolonged video-EEG recordings and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results: All patients had partial seizures, with secondary generalization in six of them. Neurologic examination was normal in all. Three were of normal intelligence, and five were mildly retarded. Six patients underwent invasive EEG recordings, three of them with subdural grids and three with stereotactic implanted depth electrodes (SEEG). Although EEG recordings showed multilobar epileptic abnormalities in most patients, regional or focal seizure onset was recorded in all. MRI showed bilateral subcortical band heterotopia, asymmetric in thickness in three. An additional area of cortical thickening in the left frontal lobe was found in one patient. Surgical procedures included multiple subpial transections in two patients, frontal lesionectomy in one, temporal lobectomy with amygdalohippocampectomy in five, and an additional anterior callosotomy in one. Five patients had no significant improvement, two had some improvement, and one was greatly improved. Conclusion: Our results do not support focal surgical removal of epileptogenic tissue in patients with double cortex syndrome, even in the presence of a relatively localized epileptogenic area.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available