4.7 Review

Epilepsy duration and seizure outcome in epilepsy surgery

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 E159-E166

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007753

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, SBU
  2. Swedish government [ALFGBG-723151]
  3. county councils, the ALF-agreement [ALFGBG-723151]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of earlier or later resective epilepsy surgery on seizure outcome. Methods We searched the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies investigating the association of epilepsy duration and seizure freedom after resective surgery. Two reviewers independently screened citations for eligibility and assessed relevant studies for risk of bias. We combined data in meta-analyses using a random effects model. We assessed the certainty of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results Twenty-five studies were included, 12 of which had data suitable for meta-analyses. Comparing seizure outcome if epilepsy surgery was performed before vs after 2, 5, 10, and 20 years of epilepsy duration, and comparing epilepsy duration <5 years to >10 years, we found significant effects favoring shorter duration with risk differences ranging from 0.15 to 0.21 and risk ratios ranging from 1.20 to 1.33 (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). According to GRADE, we found low certainty of evidence favoring shorter epilepsy duration before surgery. Conclusion People with shorter epilepsy duration are more likely to be seizure-free at follow-up. Furthermore, there is a positive association between shorter duration and seizure freedom also for very long epilepsy durations. Patients who might benefit from epilepsy surgery should therefore be referred for presurgical assessments without further delay, regardless of epilepsy duration. The low certainty of evidence acknowledges concerns regarding study heterogeneity and possible residual confounding.

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

4.7
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