4.5 Article

Lateralising value of neuropsychological protocols for presurgical assessment of temporal lobe epilepsy

期刊

EPILEPSIA
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 408-418

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.24502.x

关键词

Wada test; laterality; temporal lobe epilepsy; epilepsy surgery; neuropsychology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To estimate the value of neuropsychological measurements in determining the side of seizure onset for presurgical assessment in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. The lateralising value of neuropsychological protocols was evaluated for all patients and in subpopulations depending on surgical outcome with regard to seizure control, speech dominance, neuropathology, and need for intracranial EEG recordings. Methods: A battery of neuropsychological procedures was carried out preoperatively in 125 patients who underwent left (n = 66) or right (n = 59) temporal lobectomies. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to find sets of variables that allowed the best prediction of the side of seizure onset (assumed to be the operated-on side). Results: Combinations of noninvasive neuropsychological tests and Wada subscores showed the highest lateralising values: 80.8% for all patients, 79.4% in seizure-free patients, 86.0% in patients not rendered seizure free, 85.7% in left speech patients, 77.8% in non-left speech patients, 89.3% in patients with mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), 78.1% in non-MTS patients, 80.3% in patients who underwent intracranial EEG recordings, and 77.3% in those who did not. Conclusions: The lateralising value (80-90%) of neuropsychological protocols appears similar to that of other tests widely accepted for lateralisation (ictal and interictal scalp EEG and neuroimaging). Attention should be paid to neuropsychological results, particularly from the Wada test, during presurgical assessment of temporal lobe epilepsy, as they can provide strong support for findings from other lateralising tests, particularly in patients with presumed MTS or in left-speech patients.

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