PURPOSE: We compared computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the detection of abnormalities underlying epilepsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MR imaging findings in 117 patients (56 female, 61 male patients; age at surgery, 12-56 years) who underwent surgery for medically refractory epilepsy were compared with histopathologic findings by using the McNemar and chi 2 statistics. RESULTS: Sensitivities for detecting abnormalities were 95% (104 of 109) for MR imaging and 32% (35 of 109) for CT; specificities were 87% (13 of 15) for MR imaging and 93% (14 of 15) for CT (P < .001 for MR versus histopathologic findings). In the subgroup of 113 patients with solitary findings, MR imaging depicted an abnormality at the surgical site in 86% (n = 97) of 113 patients compared to 28% (n = 32) for CT (P < .001). In this same subgroup, histopathologic findings were predicted by using MR imaging in 88% (n = 99) of 113 patients versus 35% (n = 40) with CT (P < .001). Multiple findings were observed in 3% of CT (three of 117) and 17% of MR (20 of 117) images. CONCLUSION: CT has no role in the diagnostic evaluation of medically refractory epilepsy. Even in patients with medically controlled epilepsy, use of less costly CT instead of MR imaging seems imprudent.
PURPOSE: We compared computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for the detection of abnormalities underlying epilepsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and MR imaging findings in 117 patients (56 female, 61 male patients; age at surgery, 12-56 years) who underwent surgery for medically refractory epilepsy were compared with histopathologic findings by using the McNemar and chi 2 statistics. RESULTS: Sensitivities for detecting abnormalities were 95% (104 of 109) for MR imaging and 32% (35 of 109) for CT; specificities were 87% (13 of 15) for MR imaging and 93% (14 of 15) for CT (P < .001 for MR versus histopathologic findings). In the subgroup of 113 patients with solitary findings, MR imaging depicted an abnormality at the surgical site in 86% (n = 97) of 113 patients compared to 28% (n = 32) for CT (P < .001). In this same subgroup, histopathologic findings were predicted by using MR imaging in 88% (n = 99) of 113 patients versus 35% (n = 40) with CT (P < .001). Multiple findings were observed in 3% of CT (three of 117) and 17% of MR (20 of 117) images. CONCLUSION: CT has no role in the diagnostic evaluation of medically refractory epilepsy. Even in patients with medically controlled epilepsy, use of less costly CT instead of MR imaging seems imprudent.
Authors: A Lefkopoulos; A Haritanti; E Papadopoulou; D Karanikolas; N Fotiadis; A S Dimitriadis Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2005-04-16 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Y H Kim; K H Chang; S W Park; Y W Koh; S H Lee; I K Yu; M H Han; S K Lee; C K Chung Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2001 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: D T Hsieh; T Chang; T N Tsuchida; L G Vezina; A Vanderver; J Siedel; K Brown; M M Berl; S Stephens; A Zeitchick; W D Gaillard Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: I J Craven; P D Griffiths; D Bhattacharyya; R A Grunewald; T Hodgson; D J A Connolly; S C Coley; R Batty; C A J Romanowski; N Hoggard Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Aravind Narayan Mohandas; Rose Dawn Bharath; Parthipulli Vasuki Prathyusha; Arun K Gupta Journal: Ann Indian Acad Neurol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 1.383