4.2 Article

Ictal and interictal SPECT with Tc-99m-HMPAO in presurgical epilepsy. I: Predictive value and methodological considerations

期刊

EPILEPSIA OPEN
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 1064-1074

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/epi4.12786

关键词

cerebral blood flow; epilepsy surgery; neuroimaging; single photon emission computed tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study investigates the predictive value of ictal subtraction single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) co-registered to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (SISCOM) for successful epilepsy surgery. The results showed that the positive predictive value for good surgical outcome was 74.1% and 40% for different seizure durations.
ObjectiveThis retrospective study investigates the predictive value of ictal subtraction single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) co-registered to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (SISCOM) for successful epilepsy surgery. Methods57 patients examined with SISCOM as a part of epilepsy surgery evaluation were divided into two groups based on seizure duration after tracer injection (group 1: Seizure duration above or equal to 30 s, group 2: Seizure duration under 30 s). SISCOM was compared to the surgical site and categorized as good or poor concordance. Subsequently, Odds ratios (ORs) and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for each group for good surgical outcome, freedom from disabling seizures. ResultsThe PPVs and ORs for good surgical outcome was 74.1% and 5.71 for group 1 and 40% and 0.22 for group 2. SISCOM had a similar positive predictive value regardless of whether the focus was in the same or neighboring lobe, but same hemisphere as the resection. ConclusionIn conclusion, the implementation of a precise definition for a well-executed ictal SPECT scan with respect to seizure duration after injection enhances the positive predictive value (PPV) and odds ratio (OR) for successful surgical outcome, surpassing previous findings, whether the focus in resected lobe or the neighboring.

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

4.2
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