4.6 Article

High frequency oscillations in intra- operative electrocorticography before and after epilepsy surgery

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 125, 期 11, 页码 2212-2219

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.03.004

关键词

Epilepsy surgery; Focal epilepsy; Electrocorticography; High frequency oscillations

资金

  1. Rudolph Magnus Young Talent Fellowship
  2. Dutch Epilepsy Fund [NEF 12-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Removal of brain tissue showing high frequency oscillations (HFOs; ripples: 80-250 Hz and fast ripples: 250-500 Hz) in preresection electrocorticography (preECoG) in epilepsy patients seems a predictor of good surgical outcome. We analyzed occurrence and localization of HFOs in intra-operative preECoG and postresection electrocorticography (postECoG). Methods: HFOs were automatically detected in one-minute epochs of intra-operative ECoG sampled at 2048 Hz of fourteen patients. Ripple, fast ripple, spike, ripples on a spike (RoS) and not on a spike (RnoS) rates were analyzed in pre- and postECoG for resected and nonresected electrodes. Results: Ripple, spike and fast ripple rates decreased after resection. RnoS decreased less than RoS (74% vs. 83%; p = 0.01). Most fast ripples in preECoG were located in resected tissue. PostECoG fast ripples occurred in one patient with poor outcome. Patients with good outcome had relatively high postECoG RnoS rates, specifically in the sensorimotor cortex. Conclusions: Our observations show that fast ripples in intra-operative ECoG, compared to ripples, may be a better biomarker for epileptogenicity. Further studies have to determine the relation between resection of epileptogenic tissue and physiological ripples generated by the sensorimotor cortex. Significance: Fast ripples in intra-operative ECoG can help identify the epileptogenic zone, while ripples might also be physiological. (C) 2014 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights.

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

4.6
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