Vincent C Ye1, Alireza Mansouri2, Nebras M Warsi1, George M Ibrahim3,4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. george.ibrahim@sickkids.ca. 4. Division of Neurosurgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. george.ibrahim@sickkids.ca. 5. Program in Neurosciences and Mental Health Research Institute, Department of Surgery, Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. george.ibrahim@sickkids.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Atonic seizures are associated with a particularly poor response to medical treatment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of corpus callosotomy (CC) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in the management of atonic seizures in the pediatric population. METHODS: A literature search was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations, focusing on atonic seizures, CC, and VNS in pediatric populations. Pertinent clinical data were extracted and analyzed. Pooled effects between groups were calculated as standardized error (SE) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To assess for statistical significance, the Z-test was performed, using the pooled effect size (ES) and 95% CI for each intervention. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 studies encompassing 425 children treated with CC and 7 studies encompassing 108 children treated with VNS. Twenty-four studies were included in a meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of atonic seizure control in favor of CC (overall effect size (ES) 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77 for CC, ES 0.4, 95% CI 0.28-0.51 for VNS, p = 0.003). There was a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation in the CC cohort (6.6% vs. 3.8%) and a 14% rate of symptomatic disconnection syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: While both techniques are safe, CC provides a much higher chance of effectively managing this morbid seizure type albeit with a higher risk of re-operation and disconnection syndrome.
PURPOSE: Atonic seizures are associated with a particularly poor response to medical treatment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of corpus callosotomy (CC) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in the management of atonic seizures in the pediatric population. METHODS: A literature search was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations, focusing on atonic seizures, CC, and VNS in pediatric populations. Pertinent clinical data were extracted and analyzed. Pooled effects between groups were calculated as standardized error (SE) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To assess for statistical significance, the Z-test was performed, using the pooled effect size (ES) and 95% CI for each intervention. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 24 studies encompassing 425 children treated with CC and 7 studies encompassing 108 children treated with VNS. Twenty-four studies were included in a meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of atonic seizure control in favor of CC (overall effect size (ES) 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.77 for CC, ES 0.4, 95% CI 0.28-0.51 for VNS, p = 0.003). There was a higher rate of complications requiring reoperation in the CC cohort (6.6% vs. 3.8%) and a 14% rate of symptomatic disconnection syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: While both techniques are safe, CC provides a much higher chance of effectively managing this morbid seizure type albeit with a higher risk of re-operation and disconnection syndrome.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atonic seizures; Corpus callosotomy; Drop attacks; Epilepsy; Infant; Outcomes; Surgery; Vagus nerve stimulation
Authors: Andreas V Alexopoulos; Prakash Kotagal; Tobias Loddenkemper; Jeffrey Hammel; William E Bingaman Journal: Seizure Date: 2006-07-20 Impact factor: 3.184
Authors: Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr; Jacob R Joseph; Rebecca Schultz; Joseph L Edmonds; Angus A Wilfong; Daniel Yoshor Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Arthur Cukiert; Cristine M Cukiert; Jose A Burattini; Alessandra M Lima; Cassio R Forster; Carla Baise; Meire Argentoni-Baldochi Journal: Seizure Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.184
Authors: Anne T Berg; Susan N Smith; Daniel Frobish; Barbara Beckerman; Susan R Levy; Francine M Testa; Shlomo Shinnar Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Regina S Bower; Elaine Wirrell; Macaulay Nwojo; Nicholas M Wetjen; W Richard Marsh; Fredric B Meyer Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Anne T Berg; Karen Kaiser; Tracy Dixon-Salazar; Andi Elliot; Nancy McNamara; Mary Anne Meskis; Emily Golbeck; Priya Tatachar; Linda Laux; Carrie Raia; Janice Stanley; April Luna; Christian Rozek Journal: Epilepsia Open Date: 2019-04-14
Authors: Arthur Cukiert; Cristine M Cukiert; Jose A Burattini; Alessandra M Lima; Cassio R Forster; Carla Baise; Meire Argentoni-Baldochi Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2013-06-05