4.7 Review

Re-review of MRI with post-processing in nonlesional patients in whom epilepsy surgery has failed

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 263, 期 9, 页码 1736-1745

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-016-8171-7

关键词

Epilepsy; Presurgical evaluation; MRI-negative; Voxel-based morphometry; Focal cortical dysplasia; Failed surgery

资金

  1. Epilepsy Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Grant
  2. NIH NINDS [R01-NS074980]
  3. NINDS
  4. CURE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of MRI-negative patients with intractable focal epilepsy after failed surgery is particularly challenging. In this study, we aim to investigate whether MRI post-processing could identify relevant targets for the re-evaluation of MRI-negative patients who failed the initial resective surgery. We examined a consecutive series of 56 MRI-negative patients who underwent resective surgery and had recurring seizures at 1-year follow-up. T1-weighted volumetric sequence from the pre-surgical MRI was used for voxel-based MRI post-processing which was implemented in a morphometric analysis program (MAP). MAP was positive in 15 of the 56 patients included in this study. In 5 patients, the MAP+ regions were fully resected. In 10 patients, the MAP+ regions were not or partially resected: two out of the 10 patients had a second surgery including the unresected MAP+ region, and both became seizure-free; the remaining 8 patients did not undergo further surgery, but the unresected MAP+ regions were concordant with more than one noninvasive modality in 7. In the 8 patients who had unresected MAP+ regions and intracranial-EEG before the previous surgery, the unresected MAP+ regions were concordant with ictal onset in 6. Our data suggest that scrutiny of the presurgical MRI guided by MRI post-processing may reveal relevant targets for reoperation in nonlesional epilepsies. MAP findings, when concordant with the patient's other noninvasive data, should be considered when planning invasive evaluation/reoperation for this most challenging group of patients.

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

4.7
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