Seizure outcomes in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy evaluated for surgery but do not proceed

Comparing neuropsychological functioning in Turkish patients with right and left temporal lobe epilepsy

We compared neuropsychiatric evaluations in temporal lobe epilepsy according to the lateralized hemisphere. Forty-one (68.3%) left-sided temporal lobe epilepsy (LTLE) were compared to 19 right-sided temporal lobe epilepsy (RTLE) (31.7%) (p < 0.001). RTLE mean age was 37 (22-46) years, and LTLE mean age 38 was (30-42). RTLE disease duration was 10 (6-20) years, and LTLE was 22 (10-33) (p < 0.013). Gender (man/woman) for RTLE was 7/12, and for LTLE was 18/23. LTLE scored poorer on the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS)-III's Mental Control Months-error, WMS-V's "Forward Number Range" and "Backward Number Range" than RTLE (p < 0.017, p < 0.023, p < 0.004). There were differences between hemispheres for "Number of Items Remembered with a Hint" and "Total number of Recalled Items" (WMS-IV) (p < 0.038, p < 0.045). LTLE had lower scores in the Verbal Fluency -K-A-S letters words and WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) similarity than RTLE (p < 0.019, p < 0.024, p < 0.033, p < 0.026). Oktem and Boston-number of Self-Named Items Tests were poorer in LTLE than RTLE (p < 0.05, p < 0.043). Mental Control Months-error (WMS-III), "Total Number of Recalled Items", "Number of Items Remembered with Hint" (WMS-IV), forward and backward number range (WMS-V), Oktem, Verbal Fluency -K,-A,-S letters words, WAIS similarity, and Boston-number of Self-Named Items tests, can help identify lateralization, particularly in LTLE.

Value of semiology in predicting epileptogenic zone and surgical outcome following frontal lobe epilepsy surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ability of semiology alone in localising the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in people with frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) who underwent resective surgery.

METHODS

We examined data on all individuals who had FLE surgery at our centre between January 01, 2011 and December 31, 2020. Descriptions of ictal semiology were obtained from video-EEG telemetry reports and presurgical multidisciplinary meeting summaries. The putative EZ was represented by the final site of resection. We assessed how well initial and combined set-of-semiologies correlated anatomically with the EZ, using a semiology visualisation tool to generate probabilistic cortical heatmaps of involvement in seizures.

RESULTS

Sixty-one individuals had FLE surgery over the study period. Twelve months following surgery, 28/61 (46%) were completely seizure-free, with a further eight experiencing only auras. Comparing the semiology database with the putative EZ, combined set-of-semiology correctly lateralised in 77% (95% CI: 69-85%), localised to the frontal lobe in 57% (95% CI: 48-67%), frontal lobe subregions in 52% (95% CI: 43-62%), and frontal gyri in 25% (95% CI: 16-33%). No difference in degree of correlation was seen comparing those with ongoing seizures 12 months after surgery to those seizure free.

SIGNIFICANCE

Semiology alone was able to correctly lateralize the putative EZ in 77%, and localise to a sublobar level in approximately half of individuals who had FLE surgery. Semiology is not adequate alone and must be combined with imaging and EEG data to identify the epileptogenic zone.

Long-term seizure, psychiatric and socioeconomic outcomes after frontal lobe epilepsy surgery

OBJECTIVE

Resective surgery for selected individuals with frontal lobe epilepsy can be effective, although multimodal outcomes are less established than in temporal lobe epilepsy. We describe long-term seizure remission and relapse patterns, psychiatric comorbidity, and socioeconomic outcomes following frontal lobe epilepsy surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed individual data on frontal lobe epilepsy procedures at our center between 1990 and 2020. This included the presurgical evaluation, operative details and annual postoperative seizure and psychiatric outcomes, prospectively recorded in an epilepsy surgery database. Outcome predictors were subjected to multivariable analysis, and rates of seizure freedom were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. We used longitudinal assessment of the Index of Multiple Deprivation to assess change in socioeconomic status over time.

RESULTS

A total of 122 individuals with a median follow-up of seven years were included. Of these, 33 (27 %) had complete seizure freedom following surgery, with a further 13 (11 %) having only auras. Focal MRI abnormality, histopathology (focal cortical dysplasia, cavernoma or dysembryoplastic neuronal epithelial tumor) and fewer anti-seizure medications at the time of surgery were predictive of a favorable outcome; 67 % of those seizure-free for the first 12 months after surgery never experienced a seizure relapse. Thirty-one of 50 who had preoperative psychiatric pathology noticed improved psychiatric symptomatology by two years postoperatively. New psychiatric comorbidity was diagnosed in 15 (13 %). Persistent motor complications occurred in 5 % and dysphasia in 2 %. No significant change in socioeconomic deciles of deprivation was observed after surgery.

SIGNIFICANCE

Favorable long-term seizure, psychiatric and socioeconomic outcomes can be seen following frontal lobe epilepsy surgery. This is a safe and effective treatment that should be offered to suitable individuals early.

Multidisciplinary team meetings: the epilepsy experience

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are essential for ensuring optimal and consistent management for patients with complex problems and a variety of treatment options. Epilepsy surgery MDTs are a good example of complex decision making and planning to the best possible outcomes. The meetings need to run to an agreed format, with participants from neurology, neurophysiology, neuroimaging, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry and neurosurgery all contributing succinct opinions to enable an informed discussion. A key feature of a successful MDT is to have a clear record of complementary data and perspectives, and to document management options. It is crucial to have a debrief after the event if an outcome is less good than anticipated, with the case being gone through in as much detail as a preoperative case, and ensuring that the whole team shares the successes and the disappointments and learns from the experience.