Mette Thrane Foged1, Terje Martens2, Lars H Pinborg3, Nizar Hamrouni2, Minna Litman4, Guido Rubboli5, Anne-Mette Leffers6, Philippe Ryvlin7, Bo Jespersen8, Olaf B Paulson1, Martin Fabricius9, Sándor Beniczky10. 1. Neurobiology Research Unit, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Neurobiology Research Unit, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Neurobiology Research Unit, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Epilepsy Clinic, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Neurobiology Research Unit, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Epilepsy Clinic, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Neurology, Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark. 6. Department of Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark. 7. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Epilepsy Clinic, Department of Neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Vaud University Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland. 8. Department of Neurosurgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 9. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 10. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Danish Epilepsy Centre, Dianalund, Denmark; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Aarhus University Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: sbz@filadelfia.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic added value of electrical source imaging (ESI) in presurgical evaluation of patients with drug resistant focal epilepsy. METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive patients were included. We analyzed both low density (LD) and high density (HD) EEG recordings. LD ESI was done on interictal and ictal signals recorded during long-term video-EEG monitoring (LTM), with standard 25 electrodes and age-matched template head models. HD ESI was done on shorter recordings (90-120 min), with 256 electrodes, using individual head model. The multidisciplinary team made decisions first blinded to ESI (based on all other modalities) and then discussed the results of the ESI. We considered that ESI had diagnostic added value, when it provided non-redundant information that changed the patientś management plan. RESULTS: ESI had diagnostic added value in 28 patients (34%). In most cases (85.7%), these changes were related to planning of the invasive recordings. In nine out of 13 patients, invasive recordings confirmed the localization. Out of eight patients in whom the ESI source was resected, six became seizure-free. CONCLUSIONS: ESI provides non-redundant information in one third of the patients undergoing presurgical evaluation. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence for the diagnostic added value of ESI in presurgical evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic added value of electrical source imaging (ESI) in presurgical evaluation of patients with drug resistant focal epilepsy. METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive patients were included. We analyzed both low density (LD) and high density (HD) EEG recordings. LD ESI was done on interictal and ictal signals recorded during long-term video-EEG monitoring (LTM), with standard 25 electrodes and age-matched template head models. HD ESI was done on shorter recordings (90-120 min), with 256 electrodes, using individual head model. The multidisciplinary team made decisions first blinded to ESI (based on all other modalities) and then discussed the results of the ESI. We considered that ESI had diagnostic added value, when it provided non-redundant information that changed the patientś management plan. RESULTS: ESI had diagnostic added value in 28 patients (34%). In most cases (85.7%), these changes were related to planning of the invasive recordings. In nine out of 13 patients, invasive recordings confirmed the localization. Out of eight patients in whom the ESI source was resected, six became seizure-free. CONCLUSIONS: ESI provides non-redundant information in one third of the patients undergoing presurgical evaluation. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides evidence for the diagnostic added value of ESI in presurgical evaluation.
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: Pavel Říha; Irena Doležalová; Radek Mareček; Martin Lamoš; Michaela Bartoňová; Martin Kojan; Michal Mikl; Martin Gajdoš; Lubomír Vojtíšek; Marek Bartoň; Ondřej Strýček; Martin Pail; Milan Brázdil; Ivan Rektor Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 4.996