4.4 Article

Long-term epilepsy surgery outcomes in patients with PET-positive, MRI-negative temporal lobe epilepsy

期刊

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 91-97

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.09.054

关键词

Temporal lobe epilepsy; Nonlesional MRI; Presurgical evaluation; Postoperative outcomes; Positron emission tomography (PET); Anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the long-term efficacy of anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for the treatment of medically refractory temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in patients who presented with ipsilateral temporal PET hypometabolism and nonlesional magnetic resonance imaging (PET+/MRI-) with that in patients who hadmesial temporal sclerosis (MTS) on MRI. We described the electroclinical, MRI, PET, and pathological characteristics and seizure outcome of 28 PET+/MRI- patients without discordant ictal and interictal electroencephalography (EEG) who underwent ATL (2004-2007) for medically refractory partial epilepsy while avoiding intracranial monitoring. The primary outcome was the percentages of Engel Class I outcomes at 2 and 5 years of PET+/MRI- patients compared with those of patients with MTS on MRI; neuropsychological testing was used as the secondary outcome. At 2-year follow-up, 21 (75%) patients in the PET+/MRI- group were in Engel Class I compared with 66 (75.9%) patients with MTS, and at 5-year follow-up, 20 (71.4%) patients in the PET+/MRI- group were in Engel Class I compared with 64 (73.6%) patients in the group with MTS. There were no significant differences between the groups at either time period. We concluded that normal MRI results should not preclude presurgical evaluations in patients with medically refractory TLE, as favorable long-term postoperative seizure outcomes are possible, especially in patients with unilateral anterior interictal epileptiform discharges and ipsilateral temporal PET hypometabolism. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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