4.4 Article

Seizure outcome 1 year after temporal lobe epilepsy: an analysis of MR volumetric and clinical parameters

期刊

ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA
卷 154, 期 8, 页码 1327-1336

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00701-012-1407-0

关键词

Temporal lobe epilepsy; Epilepsy surgery; Outcome; Predictors; Volumetric MRI use in epilepsy

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB-TR3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to determine predictors that may contribute to surgical success or failure. Relevant pre- and postoperative baseline data were analyzed, and temporal structures underwent a volumetric analysis. A total of 207 patients (107 female) underwent complete evaluation for epilepsy surgery. Prospectively collected data used for this analysis included the clinical and demographic data. Classic prognostic factors (e.g., gender, age at operation, age at epilepsy manifestation, duration of epilepsy, education, side of pathology, intracranial EEG recordings, secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures, etiological factors, histology) and a volumetric analysis of 12 temporal lobe subregions were used in a regression analysis to identify possible prognostic factors in surgery for TLE. Primary outcome measure was seizure freedom at 1 year and during the full first year expressed as class I in the ILAE outcome scale. In the univariate analysis, we identified one negative predictor for a less favorable seizure outcome: intracranial EEG recordings (p = 0.010), hippocampal sclerosis as histological finding trended toward statistical significance (p = 0.054). No statistical outcome significance was found for preoperative temporal lobe compartment volume loss or postoperative lateral atrophy after mesial resection. Necessity for intracranial EEG recording is an independent factor of not optimal seizure control in the 1-year follow-up. Preoperative temporal lobe volume differences including smaller mesial subcompartments did not correlate with poorer seizure outcome.

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

4.4
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