OBJECT: The aim of this study was to identify the reasons for and predictors of no resection of the epileptogenic zone in children with epilepsy who had undergone long-term invasive subdural grid electroencephalography (SDG-EEG) evaluation. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the consecutive medical records of children (< 19 years of age) who had undergone SDG-EEG evaluation over a 7-year period (1997-2004). To determine the predictors of no resection, the authors obtained the clinical characteristics and imaging and EEG findings of children who had no resection after long-term invasive SDG-EEG evaluation and compared these data with those in a group of children who did undergo resection. They describe the indications for SDG-EEG evaluation and the reasons for no resection in these patients. RESULTS: Of 66 children who underwent SDG-EEG evaluation, 9 (13.6%) did not undergo subsequent resection (no-resection group; 6 males). Of these 9 patients, 6 (66.7%) had normal neurological examinations and 5 (55.6%) had normal findings on brain MR imaging. Scalp video EEG localized epilepsy to the left hemisphere in 6 of the 9 patients and to the right hemisphere in 2; it was nonlocalizable in 1 of the 9 patients. Indications for SDG-EEG in the no-resection group were ictal onset zone (IOZ) localization (9 of 9 patients), motor cortex localization (5 of 9 patients), and language area localization (4 of 9 patients). Reasons for no resection after SDG-EEG evaluation were the lack of a well-defined IOZ in 5 of 9 patients (4 multifocal IOZs and 1 nonlocalizable IOZ) and anticipated new permanent postoperative neurological deficits in 7 of 9 patients (3 motor, 2 language, and 2 motor and language deficits). Comparison with the resection group (57 patients) demonstrated that postictal Todd paralysis in the dominant hand was the only variable seen more commonly (χ(2) = 4.781, p = 0.029) in the no-resection group (2 [22.2%] of 9 vs 2 [3.5%] of 57 patients). The no-resection group had a larger number of SDG electrode contacts (mean 126. 5 ± 26.98) as compared with the resection group (100.56 ± 25.52; p = 0.010). There were no significant differences in the demographic data, seizure characteristics, scalp and invasive EEG findings, and imaging variables between the resection and no-resection groups. CONCLUSIONS: Children who did not undergo resection of the epileptogenic zone after SDG-EEG evaluation were likely to have normal neurological examinations without preexisting neurological deficits, a high probability of a new unacceptable permanent neurological deficit following resection, or multifocal or nonlocalizable IOZs. In comparison with the group that underwent resection after SDG-EEG, a history of Todd paralysis in the dominant hand and arm was the only predictor of no resection following SDG-EEG evaluation. Data in this study will help to better select pediatric patients for SDG-EEG and to counsel families prior to epilepsy surgery.
OBJECT: The aim of this study was to identify the reasons for and predictors of no resection of the epileptogenic zone in children with epilepsy who had undergone long-term invasive subdural grid electroencephalography (SDG-EEG) evaluation. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the consecutive medical records of children (< 19 years of age) who had undergone SDG-EEG evaluation over a 7-year period (1997-2004). To determine the predictors of no resection, the authors obtained the clinical characteristics and imaging and EEG findings of children who had no resection after long-term invasive SDG-EEG evaluation and compared these data with those in a group of children who did undergo resection. They describe the indications for SDG-EEG evaluation and the reasons for no resection in these patients. RESULTS: Of 66 children who underwent SDG-EEG evaluation, 9 (13.6%) did not undergo subsequent resection (no-resection group; 6 males). Of these 9 patients, 6 (66.7%) had normal neurological examinations and 5 (55.6%) had normal findings on brain MR imaging. Scalp video EEG localized epilepsy to the left hemisphere in 6 of the 9 patients and to the right hemisphere in 2; it was nonlocalizable in 1 of the 9 patients. Indications for SDG-EEG in the no-resection group were ictal onset zone (IOZ) localization (9 of 9 patients), motor cortex localization (5 of 9 patients), and language area localization (4 of 9 patients). Reasons for no resection after SDG-EEG evaluation were the lack of a well-defined IOZ in 5 of 9 patients (4 multifocal IOZs and 1 nonlocalizable IOZ) and anticipated new permanent postoperative neurological deficits in 7 of 9 patients (3 motor, 2 language, and 2 motor and language deficits). Comparison with the resection group (57 patients) demonstrated that postictal Todd paralysis in the dominant hand was the only variable seen more commonly (χ(2) = 4.781, p = 0.029) in the no-resection group (2 [22.2%] of 9 vs 2 [3.5%] of 57 patients). The no-resection group had a larger number of SDG electrode contacts (mean 126. 5 ± 26.98) as compared with the resection group (100.56 ± 25.52; p = 0.010). There were no significant differences in the demographic data, seizure characteristics, scalp and invasive EEG findings, and imaging variables between the resection and no-resection groups. CONCLUSIONS:Children who did not undergo resection of the epileptogenic zone after SDG-EEG evaluation were likely to have normal neurological examinations without preexisting neurological deficits, a high probability of a new unacceptable permanent neurological deficit following resection, or multifocal or nonlocalizable IOZs. In comparison with the group that underwent resection after SDG-EEG, a history of Todd paralysis in the dominant hand and arm was the only predictor of no resection following SDG-EEG evaluation. Data in this study will help to better select pediatric patients for SDG-EEG and to counsel families prior to epilepsy surgery.