4.5 Article

Identifying the Epileptogenic Zone With the Relative Strength of High-Frequency Oscillation: A Stereoelectroencephalography Study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00186

关键词

high-frequency oscillation; wavelet analysis; stereo-EEG; seizure; epilepsy surgery

资金

  1. Capital Foundation of Medical Developments [2018-2-1075]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background High-frequency oscillation (HFO) represents a promising biomarker of epileptogenicity. However, the significant interindividual differences among patients limit its application in clinical practice. Here, we applied and evaluated an individualized, frequency-based approach of HFO analysis in stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) data for localizing the epileptogenic zones (EZs). Methods Clinical and SEEG data of 19 patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy were retrospectively analyzed. The individualized spectral power of all signals recorded by electrode array, i.e., the relative strength of HFO, was computed with a wavelet method for each patient. Subsequently, the clinical value of the relative strength of HFO for identifying the EZ was evaluated. Results Focal increase in the relative strength of HFO in SEEG recordings were identified in all 19 patients. HFOs identified inside the clinically identified seizure onset zone had more spectral power than those identified outside (p< 0.001), and HFOs in 250-500 Hz band (fast ripples) seemed to be more specific identifying the EZ than in those in 80-250 Hz band (ripples) (p< 0.01). The resection of brain regions generating HFOs resulted in a favorable seizure outcome in 17 patients (17/19; 89.5%), while in the cases of other patients with poor outcomes, the brain regions generating HFOs were not removed completely. Conclusion The relative strength of HFO, especially fast ripples, is a promising effective biomarker for identifying the EZ and can lead to a favorable seizure outcome if used to guide 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

4.5
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