Literature DB >> 24135067

Comparison of bipolar versus monopolar extraoperative electrical cortical stimulation mapping in patients with focal epilepsy.

Stjepana Kovac1, Catherine A Scott2, Vesela Maglajlija2, Nathan Toms2, Roman Rodionov3, Anna Miserocchi3, Andrew W McEvoy3, Beate Diehl4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Extraoperative cortical stimulation (CS) for mapping of eloquent cortex in patients prior to epilepsy surgery is not standardized across centres. Two different techniques are in use, referred to as bipolar and monopolar CS. We compared the ability of bipolar versus monopolar CS to identify eloquent cortex and their safety profile in patients undergoing subdural EEG recordings.
METHODS: Five patients undergoing intracranial EEG recordings and extraoperative CS. Systematic comparison of stimulus parameters, clinical signs and afterdischarges of bipolar versus monopolar CS.
RESULTS: Bipolar CS requires less stimulation current but is more time consuming and more likely to produce afterdischarges when compared to monopolar CS. None of the stimulations elicited seizures. The area defined as eloquent by either bipolar or monopolar CS reveals only minor discordances, involving mainly the outer row and edge of the electrode array producing clinical signs with monopolar CS only. Qualitatively, bi- and monopolar CS reproduced similar movements and types of muscle contractions.
CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar and monopolar CS are safe procedures identifying similar cortical areas as eloquent, although monopolar cortical stimulation is less time consuming. SIGNIFICANCE: Findings advocate the use of monopolar CS in a clinical setting.
Copyright © 2013 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Afterdischarges; Electrical cortical stimulation; Epilepsy surgery; Frontal lobe

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24135067     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.09.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  6 in total

1.  Computationally optimized ECoG stimulation with local safety constraints.

Authors:  Seyhmus Guler; Moritz Dannhauer; Biel Roig-Solvas; Alexis Gkogkidis; Rob Macleod; Tonio Ball; Jeffrey G Ojemann; Dana H Brooks
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  Stimulation-related intraoperative seizures during awake surgery: a review of available evidences.

Authors:  Elena Roca; Johan Pallud; Francesco Guerrini; Pier Paolo Panciani; Marco Fontanella; Giannantonio Spena
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.042

3.  Reversed Procrastination by Focal Disruption of Medial Frontal Cortex.

Authors:  Ashwani Jha; Beate Diehl; Catherine Scott; Andrew W McEvoy; Parashkev Nachev
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Impairment of consciousness induced by bilateral electrical stimulation of the frontal convexity.

Authors:  Imran H Quraishi; Christopher F Benjamin; Dennis D Spencer; Hal Blumenfeld; Rafeed Alkawadri
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav Case Rep       Date:  2017-09-29

5.  Probabilistic electrical stimulation mapping of human medial frontal cortex.

Authors:  Gianluca Trevisi; Simon B Eickhoff; Fahmida Chowdhury; Ashwani Jha; Roman Rodionov; Mark Nowell; Anna Miserocchi; Andrew W McEvoy; Parashkev Nachev; Beate Diehl
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 4.027

6.  Comparison of Thresholds between Bipolar and Monopolar Electrical Cortical Stimulation.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Takahashi; Rei Enatsu; Aya Kanno; Seiichiro Imataka; Shoichi Komura; Tomoaki Tamada; Kyoya Sakashita; Ryohei Chiba; Takuro Saito; Nobuhiro Mikuni
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 2.036

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.