Erratum to: The use of simultaneous stereo-electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography in localizing the epileptogenic focus in refractory focal epilepsy

✓ One hundred patients with focal epilepsy (44 were children) were evaluated with extraoperative electrocorticography via epidural electrode arrays. Localization of the epileptogenic focus was derived predominantly from recordings made during spontaneously occurring seizures. All resection procedures were carried out under general anesthesia. During anesthesia, the recording of sensory evoked responses made it possible to readily identify the sensorimotor region. Of the 100 patients, 72 underwent resection of an epileptogenic focus, and 33 of these were children. Those who did not have a resection either exhibited a diffuse seizure focus, failed to show an electrical seizure discharge in association with the clinical seizure, failed to have a seizure during the period of monitoring, or failed to exhibit conclusive changes for identifying a focus in the interictal record. Fifty-seven patients (29 children and 28 adults) who had a resection have been followed for between 1 and 12 years. Eighteen (62%) of the 29 children and 18 (64%) of the 28 adults enjoyed a good result. Twenty of the 100 patients reported here had temporal lobe epilepsy. They were candidates for recordings with depth electrodes to identify their focus, but they were evaluated instead with epidural recordings; the method is described. In 15 of them, a unilateral focus was identified and they underwent an anterior temporal lobectomy. Pathological changes were found in every case and, in 11 patients, the epidural recordings distinguished between a medial and a lateral focus. Ten of these patients have been followed for 9 months to 3½ years, and seven have had a good result. The observations suggest that epidural electrodes may be used in lieu of depth electrodes for identifying the symptomatic temporal lobe.

Download Full-text

Neuroimaging methods in Epilepsy of Temporal Origin

Current Medical Imaging Formerly Current Medical Imaging Reviews ◽

10.2174/1573405613666170622114920 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 39-51 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ioannis Tsougos ◽

Evanthia Kousi ◽

Panagiotis Georgoulias ◽

Eftychia Kapsalaki ◽

Kostas N. Fountas

Keyword(s):

Mr Imaging ◽

Pet Imaging ◽

Focal Epilepsy ◽

Imaging Techniques ◽

Hippocampal Sclerosis ◽

Structural Mri ◽

Epileptogenic Focus ◽

1H Mrs ◽

Additional Information ◽

Neurophysiological Data

Background: Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) comprises the most common form of symptomatic refractory focal epilepsy in adults. Accurate lateralization and localization of the epileptogenic focus are a significant prerequisite for determining surgical candidacy once the patient has been deemed medically intractable. Structural MR imaging, clinical, electrophysiological, and neurophysiological data have an established role in the localization of the epileptogenic foci. Nevertheless, hippocampal sclerosis cannot be detected on MR images in more than 30% of patients with TLE, and the presurgical assessment remains controversial. </P><P> Discussion: In the last years, advanced MR imaging techniques, such as 1H-MRS, DWI, DTI, DSCI, and fMRI, may provide valuable additional information regarding the physiological and metabolic characterization of brain tissue. MR imaging has shifted towards functional and molecular imaging, thus, promising to improve the accuracy regarding the lateralization and the localization of the epileptogenic focus. Additionally, nuclear medicine studies, such as SPECT and PET imaging modalities, have become an asset for the decoding of brain function and activity, and can be diagnostically helpful as well, since they provide valuable data regarding the altered metabolic activity of the seizure foci. Conclusion: Overall, advanced MRI, SPECT, and PET imaging techniques are increasingly becoming an essential part of TLE diagnostics, when the epileptogenic area is not identified on structural MRI or when structural MRI, clinical, and electrophysiological findings are not in concordance.

Download Full-text