Petros Nemtsas1, Gwenael Birot2, Francesca Pittau3, Christoph M Michel2,4, Karl Schaller5, Serge Vulliemoz3, Vasilios K Kimiskidis1, Margitta Seeck3. 1. Laboratory of Clinical Neurophysiology, AHEPA Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. Department of Fundamental Neurosciences, Functional Brain Mapping Lab, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. EEG & Epilepsy Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Center for Biomedical Imaging (CIBM) Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Neurosurgery Clinic, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electrical source imaging (ESI) is a well-established approach to localizing the epileptic focus in drug-resistant focal epilepsy. So far, ESI has been used primarily on interictal events. Emerging evidence suggests that ictal ESI is also feasible and potentially useful. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of ESI on ictal events using high-density electroencephalography (EEG). METHODS: We performed ictal ESI on 14 patients (9 with temporal lobe epilepsy) admitted for presurgical evaluation who presented seizures during a long-term (≥18 h) high-density EEG recording (13 with 256 electrodes and one with 128 electrodes), and subsequently 8 of them underwent epilepsy surgery (postoperative follow-up >1 year). Artifact-free EEG epochs at ictal οnset were selected for further analysis. The predominant ictal rhythm was identified and filtered (±1 Hz around the main frequency). ESI was computed for each time point using an individual head model and a distributed linear inverse solution, and the average across source localizations was localized. For validation, results were compared with the resection area and postoperative outcome. RESULTS: Ictal ESI correctly localized the epileptic seizure-onset zone in the resection area in five of six postoperatively seizure-free patients. Interictal and ictal ESI were concordant in 9 of 14 patients and partially concordant in additional 4 of 14 patients (93%). Divergent solutions were found in only one of the 14 patients (7%). SIGNIFICANCE: Ictal ESI is a promising localization technique in focal epilepsy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Electrical source imaging (ESI) is a well-established approach to localizing the epileptic focus in drug-resistant focal epilepsy. So far, ESI has been used primarily on interictal events. Emerging evidence suggests that ictal ESI is also feasible and potentially useful. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of ESI on ictal events using high-density electroencephalography (EEG). METHODS: We performed ictal ESI on 14 patients (9 with temporal lobe epilepsy) admitted for presurgical evaluation who presented seizures during a long-term (≥18 h) high-density EEG recording (13 with 256 electrodes and one with 128 electrodes), and subsequently 8 of them underwent epilepsy surgery (postoperative follow-up >1 year). Artifact-free EEG epochs at ictal οnset were selected for further analysis. The predominant ictal rhythm was identified and filtered (±1 Hz around the main frequency). ESI was computed for each time point using an individual head model and a distributed linear inverse solution, and the average across source localizations was localized. For validation, results were compared with the resection area and postoperative outcome. RESULTS:Ictal ESI correctly localized the epilepticseizure-onset zone in the resection area in five of six postoperatively seizure-free patients. Interictal and ictal ESI were concordant in 9 of 14 patients and partially concordant in additional 4 of 14 patients (93%). Divergent solutions were found in only one of the 14 patients (7%). SIGNIFICANCE: Ictal ESI is a promising localization technique in focal epilepsy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Michel Alhilani; Eleonora Tamilia; Lorenzo Ricci; Laura Ricci; P Ellen Grant; Joseph R Madsen; Phillip L Pearl; Christos Papadelis Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Lorenzo Ricci; Eleonora Tamilia; Michel Alhilani; Aliza Alter; Μ Scott Perry; Joseph R Madsen; Jurriaan M Peters; Phillip L Pearl; Christos Papadelis Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Adolfo Ramirez-Zamora; James Giordano; Edward S Boyden; Viviana Gradinaru; Aysegul Gunduz; Philip A Starr; Sameer A Sheth; Cameron C McIntyre; Michael D Fox; Jerrold Vitek; Vinata Vedam-Mai; Umer Akbar; Leonardo Almeida; Helen M Bronte-Stewart; Helen S Mayberg; Nader Pouratian; Aryn H Gittis; Annabelle C Singer; Meaghan C Creed; Gabriel Lazaro-Munoz; Mark Richardson; Marvin A Rossi; Leopoldo Cendejas-Zaragoza; Pierre-Francois D'Haese; Winston Chiong; Ro'ee Gilron; Howard Chizeck; Andrew Ko; Kenneth B Baker; Joost Wagenaar; Noam Harel; Wissam Deeb; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Chris Plummer; Simon J Vogrin; William P Woods; Michael A Murphy; Mark J Cook; David T J Liley Journal: Brain Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Shuai Ye; Lin Yang; Yunfeng Lu; Michal T Kucewicz; Benjamin Brinkmann; Cindy Nelson; Abbas Sohrabpour; Gregory A Worrell; Bin He Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 9.910