PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advanced MRI postprocessing techniques are increasingly used to complement visual analysis and elucidate structural epileptogenic lesions. This review summarizes recent developments in MRI postprocessing in the context of epilepsy presurgical evaluation, with the focus on patients with unremarkable MRI by visual analysis (i.e. 'nonlesional' MRI). RECENT FINDINGS: Various methods of MRI postprocessing have been reported to show additional clinical values in the following areas: lesion detection on an individual level; lesion confirmation for reducing the risk of over reading the MRI; detection of sulcal/gyral morphologic changes that are particularly difficult for visual analysis; and delineation of cortical abnormalities extending beyond the visible lesion. Future directions to improve the performance of MRI postprocessing include using higher magnetic field strength for better signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio adopting a multicontrast frame work and integration with other noninvasive modalities. SUMMARY: MRI postprocessing can provide essential value to increase the yield of structural MRI and should be included as part of the presurgical evaluation of nonlesional epilepsies. MRI postprocessing allows for more accurate identification/delineation of cortical abnormalities, which should then be more confidently targeted and mapped.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Advanced MRI postprocessing techniques are increasingly used to complement visual analysis and elucidate structural epileptogenic lesions. This review summarizes recent developments in MRI postprocessing in the context of epilepsy presurgical evaluation, with the focus on patients with unremarkable MRI by visual analysis (i.e. 'nonlesional' MRI). RECENT FINDINGS: Various methods of MRI postprocessing have been reported to show additional clinical values in the following areas: lesion detection on an individual level; lesion confirmation for reducing the risk of over reading the MRI; detection of sulcal/gyral morphologic changes that are particularly difficult for visual analysis; and delineation of cortical abnormalities extending beyond the visible lesion. Future directions to improve the performance of MRI postprocessing include using higher magnetic field strength for better signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio adopting a multicontrast frame work and integration with other noninvasive modalities. SUMMARY: MRI postprocessing can provide essential value to increase the yield of structural MRI and should be included as part of the presurgical evaluation of nonlesional epilepsies. MRI postprocessing allows for more accurate identification/delineation of cortical abnormalities, which should then be more confidently targeted and mapped.
Authors: Hans-Jürgen Huppertz; Christina Grimm; Susanne Fauser; Jan Kassubek; Irina Mader; Albrecht Hochmuth; Joachim Spreer; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Ingmar Blümcke; Maria Thom; Eleonora Aronica; Dawna D Armstrong; Harry V Vinters; Andre Palmini; Thomas S Jacques; Giuliano Avanzini; A James Barkovich; Giorgio Battaglia; Albert Becker; Carlos Cepeda; Fernando Cendes; Nadia Colombo; Peter Crino; J Helen Cross; Olivier Delalande; François Dubeau; John Duncan; Renzo Guerrini; Philippe Kahane; Gary Mathern; Imad Najm; Ciğdem Ozkara; Charles Raybaud; Alfonso Represa; Steven N Roper; Noriko Salamon; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Laura Tassi; Annamaria Vezzani; Roberto Spreafico Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Zhong I Wang; Andreas V Alexopoulos; Stephen E Jones; Imad M Najm; Aleksandar Ristic; Chong Wong; Richard Prayson; Felix Schneider; Yosuke Kakisaka; Shuang Wang; William Bingaman; Jorge A Gonzalez-Martinez; Richard C Burgess Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Samson B Antel; D Louis Collins; Neda Bernasconi; Frederick Andermann; Rajjan Shinghal; Robert E Kearney; Douglas L Arnold; Andrea Bernasconi Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Z Irene Wang; Andreas V Alexopoulos; Stephen E Jones; Zeenat Jaisani; Imad M Najm; Richard A Prayson Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Jason M Bruggemann; Marko Wilke; Seu S Som; Ann M E Bye; Andrew Bleasel; John A Lawson Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962