PURPOSE: To review the clinical and neurophysiological data of 21 patients with epilepsy due to temporal lobe tumors and who had undergone evaluation and surgery at the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade de São Paulo. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the occurrence of a mirror focus was influenced either by certain clinical factors or if the surgical outcome was influenced by the presence of a mirror focus. METHOD: We included these 21 patients who had undergone at least one interictal electroencephalogram in the pre- and post-surgical periods. They had had a minimum follow-up of one year. RESULTS: Eight patients had mirror focus (Group 1) and 13 did not (Group 2). The mean age at seizure onset, duration of epilepsy disorder and total number of seizures did not vary statistically between the two groups of patients. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures occurred more frequently in the mirror focus group. All, but one patient, with a mirror focus were seizure free at follow- up. The mirror focus disappeared in all eight patients in the post-surgical electroencephalogram. In this group, the patient who was not seizure - free had a seizure recorded in his post-surgical electroencephalogram with seizure onset ipsilateral to the resected tumor. The patients who were not seizure-free had either been submitted to an incomplete resection of the tumor or showed evidence of associated cortical dysplasia. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of mirror focus is not a contraindication to surgery even when interictal epileptiform activity predominates contralaterally to the tumor and neither when seizures appear to arise from the mirror focus on scalp EEG. Good surgical outcome is expected despite EEG findings that may conflict with tumor location.
PURPOSE: To review the clinical and neurophysiological data of 21 patients with epilepsy due to temporal lobe tumors and who had undergone evaluation and surgery at the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade de São Paulo. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the occurrence of a mirror focus was influenced either by certain clinical factors or if the surgical outcome was influenced by the presence of a mirror focus. METHOD: We included these 21 patients who had undergone at least one interictal electroencephalogram in the pre- and post-surgical periods. They had had a minimum follow-up of one year. RESULTS: Eight patients had mirror focus (Group 1) and 13 did not (Group 2). The mean age at seizure onset, duration of epilepsy disorder and total number of seizures did not vary statistically between the two groups of patients. Generalized tonic-clonic seizures occurred more frequently in the mirror focus group. All, but one patient, with a mirror focus were seizure free at follow- up. The mirror focus disappeared in all eight patients in the post-surgical electroencephalogram. In this group, the patient who was not seizure - free had a seizure recorded in his post-surgical electroencephalogram with seizure onset ipsilateral to the resected tumor. The patients who were not seizure-free had either been submitted to an incomplete resection of the tumor or showed evidence of associated cortical dysplasia. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of mirror focus is not a contraindication to surgery even when interictal epileptiform activity predominates contralaterally to the tumor and neither when seizures appear to arise from the mirror focus on scalp EEG. Good surgical outcome is expected despite EEG findings that may conflict with tumor location.