4.6 Article

Presence of Temporal Gray-White Matter Abnormalities Does Not Influence Epilepsy Surgery Outcome in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy With Hippocampal Sclerosis

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 68, 期 1, 页码 98-106

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3181fc60ff

关键词

Epileptogenic zone; Gray-white matter abnormalities; Hippocampal sclerosis; Temporal lobe epilepsy

资金

  1. Dutch National Epilepsy Foundation (NEF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Temporal lobe gray-white matter abnormalities (GWMA) are frequent morphological aberrances observed on MRI in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) in addition to hippocampal sclerosis (HS). OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of temporal pole GWMA on clinical characteristics and seizure outcome in patients with HS operated on for TLE. METHODS: A cohort of 370 patients undergoing surgery for intractable TLE was prospectively collected in an epilepsy surgery data base. Clinical characteristics and seizure outcome of all 58 TLE patients with identified HS and GWMA (group 1) were compared with those of a matched control group of 58 HS patients without GWMA (group 2). Both groups were further subdivided into patients undergoing transsylvian selective amygdalohippocampectomy (sAH) and anterior temporal lobectomy with amygdalohippocampectomy (ATL). RESULTS: The HS plus GWMA patients were significantly younger at epilepsy onset than those without GWMA. In the HS plus GWMA group, 41% of patients were younger than 2 years when they experienced their first seizure in contrast to only 17% of patients with pure HS (P = .004). Seizure outcome was not statistically different between the 2 groups: 75.9% of the patients in group 1 were seizure free (Engel class I) compared with 81% of patients in group 2. Seizure outcome in both groups was about equally successful with selective amygdalohippocampectomy and anterior temporal lobectomy (ns). CONCLUSION: Limited and standard resections in TLE patients with HS are equally successful regardless of the presence of GWMA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据