4.6 Article

Functional Connectivity Estimated from Intracranial EEG Predicts Surgical Outcome in Intractable Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077916

关键词

-

资金

  1. Mt. Sinai Health Care Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This project aimed to determine if a correlation-based measure of functional connectivity can identify epileptogenic zones from intracranial EEG signals, as well as to investigate the prognostic significance of such a measure on seizure outcome following temporal lobe lobectomy. To this end, we retrospectively analyzed 23 adult patients with intractable temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) who underwent an invasive stereo-EEG (SEEG) evaluation between January 2009 year and January 2012. A follow-up of at least one year was required. The primary outcome measure was complete seizure-freedom at last follow-up. Functional connectivity between two areas in the temporal lobe that were sampled by two SEEG electrode contacts was defined as Pearson's correlation coefficient of interictal activity between those areas. SEEG signals were filtered between 5 and 50 Hz prior to computing this correlation. The mean and standard deviation of the off diagonal elements in the connectivity matrix were also calculated. Analysis of the mean and standard deviation of the functional connections for each patient reveals that 90% of the patients who had weak and homogenous connections were seizure free one year after temporal lobectomy, whereas 85% of the patients who had stronger and more heterogeneous connections within the temporal lobe had recurrence of seizures. This suggests that temporal lobectomy is ineffective in preventing seizure recurrence for patients in whom the temporal lobe is characterized by weakly connected, homogenous networks. This pilot study shows promising potential of a simple measure of functional brain connectivity to identify epileptogenicity and predict the outcome of epilepsy surgery.

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

4.6
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