4.7 Article

High frequency oscillations in intracranial EEGs mark epileptogenicity rather than lesion type

期刊

BRAIN
卷 132, 期 -, 页码 1022-1037

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn351

关键词

high frequency oscillations; focal cortical dysplasia; nodular heterotopia; temporal atrophy; seizure onset zone; intracranial EEG

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-10189]
  2. Preston Robb Fellowship
  3. Montreal Neurological Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High frequency oscillations (HFOs) called ripples (80250 Hz) and fast ripples (FR, 250500 Hz) can be recorded from intracerebral EEG macroelectrodes in patients with intractable epilepsy. HFOs occur predominantly in the seizure onset zone (SOZ) but their relationship to the underlying pathology is unknown. It was the aim of this study to investigate whether HFOs are specific to the SOZ or result from pathologically changed tissue, whether or not it is epileptogenic. Patients with different lesion types, namely mesial temporal atrophy (MTA), focal cortical dysplasia (FCD) and nodular heterotopias (NH) were investigated. Intracranial EEG was recorded from depth macroelectrodes with a sampling rate of 2000 Hz. Ripples (80250 Hz) and Fast Ripples (250500 Hz) were visually marked in 12 patients: five with MTA, four with FCD and three with NH. Rates of events were statistically compared in channels in four areas: lesional SOZ, non-lesional SOZ, lesional non-SOZ and non-lesional non-SOZ. HFO rates were clearly more linked to the SOZ than to the lesion. They were highest in areas in which lesion and SOZ overlap, but in patients with a SOZ outside the lesion, such as in NHs, HFO rates were clearly higher in the non-lesional SOZ than in the inactive lesions. No specific HFO pattern could be identified for the different lesion types. The findings suggest that HFOs represent a marker for SOZ areas independent of the underlying pathology and that pathologic tissue changes alone do not lead to high rates of HFOs.

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