4.4 Review

The start and development of epilepsy surgery in Europe: a historical review

期刊

NEUROSURGICAL REVIEW
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 447-460

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-015-0641-3

关键词

History; Epilepsy surgery; Europe; SEEG; Electrode implantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epilepsy has not always been considered a brain disease, but was believed to be a demonic possession in the past. Therefore, trepanation was done not only for medical but also for religious or spiritual reasons, originating in the Neolithic period (3000 BC). The earliest documentation of trepanation for epilepsy is found in the writings of the Hippocratic Corpus and consisted mainly of just skull surgery. The transition from skull surgery to brain surgery took place in the middle of the nineteenth century when the insight of epilepsy as a cortical disorder of the brain emerged. This led to the start of modern epilepsy surgery. The pioneer countries in which epilepsy surgery was performed in Europe were the UK, Germany, and The Netherlands. Neurosurgical forerunners like Sir Victor Horsley, William Macewen, Fedor Krause, and Otfrid Foerster started with modern epilepsy surgery. Initially, epilepsy surgery was mainly done with the purpose to resect traumatic lesions or large surface tumours. In the course of the twentieth century, this changed to highly specialized microscopic navigation-guided surgery to resect lesional and non-lesional epileptogenic cortex. The development of epilepsy surgery in Southern Europe, which has not been described until now, will be elaborated in this manuscript. To summarize, in this paper, we provide (1) a detailed description of the evolution of European epilepsy surgery with special emphasis on the pioneer countries; (2) novel, never published information about the development of epilepsy surgery in Southern Europe; and (3) we review the historical dichotomy of invasive electrode implantation strategy (Anglo-Saxon surface electrodes versus French-Italian stereoencephalography (SEEG) model).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据