| Literature DB >> 34268913 |
Oleg V Lobanov1, Joshua S Shimony2, Jeanette Kenley1, Sydney Kaplan1, Dimitrios Alexopoulos1, Jarod L Roland3, Matthew D Smyth4,5, Christopher D Smyser1,2,5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate resting-state functional connectivity (FC) in pediatric patients with tuberous sclerosis complex and intractable epilepsy requiring surgery.Entities:
Keywords: epilepsy; epilepsy surgery; functional MRI; functional connectivity; tuberous sclerosis complex
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34268913 PMCID: PMC8408601 DOI: 10.1002/epi4.12523
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Epilepsia Open ISSN: 2470-9239
FIGURE 1Group mean presurgical voxel‐mirrored homotopic functional connectivity (VMHC) computed as the Pearson correlation (Fisher Z‐transformed) between every pair of symmetric interhemispheric voxel's time series. VMHC is overlaid on a T2‐weighted atlas‐representative image. Higher VMHC values are seen in low (A) compared to high (B) tuber burden groups. This difference is especially notable in frontal and parietal regions. (C) Global distribution is shifted toward zero in high when compared to low tuber burden group. (D) VMHC (mean ±95% confidence interval) organized according to anatomical region. Regional values of VHMC were lower in the high tuber burden group across all regions
FIGURE 2Presurgical FC matrices in low (A) and high (B) tuber burden groups, as well as their direct statistical comparison using two‐sample t test (C). The bottom row demonstrates network averages for 12 resting‐state networks in low (D) and high (E) tuber burden groups, as well as their comparison (F). Across both sets of matrices, within‐network connectivity is reflected in on‐diagonal measures, with between‐network connectivity reflected in off‐diagonal measures. AUD, Auditory; CER, Cerebellum; CO, Cingulo‐opercular; DAN, Dorsal attention network; DMN, Default mode network; DNGM, Deep nuclei gray matter; FPN, Frontoparietal network; PM, Parietal memory; SAL, Salience; SMN, Sensorimotor; VAN, Ventral attention network; VIS, Visual
Clinical data for subjects with pre‐ and postsurgical functional connectivity data
| Age, years | Sz Type | Infantile spasms | Tuber burden | Surgery | FC change | Engel class | Development pre‐surgery | Development post‐surgery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | Gen | No | High | CC | NI | IV | Poor | Poor |
| 14.1 | Focal | No | Low | Tuberectomy | No data | I | Good | Good |
| 12.1 | Focal | No | Low | Tuberectomy | No data | I | Good | Good |
| 8.4 | Gen | Yes | High | CC | NI | IV | Poor | Poor |
| 6.6 | Focal | No | Low | Tuberectomy | Improved | I | Good | Good |
| 4 | Focal | Yes | Low | Tuberectomy | No data | II | Poor | Poor |
| 3.1 | Focal | Yes | High | Tuberectomy | No data | II | Poor | Poor |
| 3.1 | Focal | No | Low | Tuberectomy | Improved | I | Good | Good |
| 2.6 | Focal | Yes | High | Tuberectomy | NI | I | Poor | Poor |
| 1.9 | Focal | Yes | High | Tuberectomy | Improved | I | Poor | Good |
| 1.8 | Focal | Yes | High | Tuberectomy | No data | IV | Poor | Poor |
| 1.4 | Focal | Yes | High | Tuberectomy | No data | IV | Poor | Poor |
| 1.1 | Focal | Yes | High | Tuberectomy | No data | IV | Poor | Poor |
Abbreviations: CC, corpus callosotomy; Gen, apparent generalized; NI, no improvement; Sz, seizure.
FIGURE 3Presurgical (A—all ROIs, C—resting‐state network averages) versus postsurgical (B—all ROIs, D—resting‐state network averages) FC in an individual patient with markedly improved developmental trajectory and seizure resolution after tuberectomy. Improvement in FC was ascertained through assessment of correlation value magnitude (both positive and negative) from pre‐ to postoperative studies. Within network connectivity before and after surgery is: SMN—0.09 (pre) vs 0.14 (post), CO—0.02 (pre) vs 0.15 (post), AUD—0.2 (pre) vs 0.35 (post), DMN—0.02 (pre) vs 0.09 (post), PM—0.03 (pre) vs 0.57 (post), VIS—0.06 (pre) vs 0.21 (post), FPN—0.04 (pre) vs 0.13 (post), SAL—0.06 (pre) vs 0.17 (post), VAN—0.11 (pre) vs 0.15 (post), DAN—0.004 (pre) vs 0.17 (post), DNGM—0.09 (pre) vs 0.09 (post), CER—–0.04 (pre) vs 0.25 (post). AUD, Auditory; CER, Cerebellum; CO, Cingulo‐opercular; DAN, Dorsal attention network; DMN, Default mode network; DNGM, Deep nuclei gray matter; FPN, Frontoparietal network; PM, Parietal memory; SAL, Salience; SMN, Sensorimotor; VAN, Ventral attention network; VIS, Visual