Amygdalohippocampal deep brain stimulation (AH-DBS) for refractory temporal lobe epilepsy

Palliative Epilepsy Surgery Procedures in Children

Surgical treatment of epilepsy typically focuses on identification of a seizure focus with subsequent resection and/or disconnection to "cure" the patient's epilepsy and achieve seizure freedom. Palliative epilepsy surgery modalities are efficacious in improving seizure frequency, severity, and quality of life. In this paper, we review palliative epilepsy surgical options for children: vagus nerve stimulation, responsive neurostimulation, deep brain stimulation, hemispherotomy, corpus callosotomy, lobectomy and/or lesionectomy and multiple subpial transection. Reoperation after surgical resection should also be considered. If curative resection is not a viable option for seizure freedom, these methods should be considered with equal emphasis and urgency in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy.

A systematic review of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in childhood

OBJECTIVE Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) presents a therapeutic challenge in children, necessitating the consideration of multiple treatment options. Although deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been studied in adults with DRE, little evidence is available to guide clinicians regarding the application of this potentially valuable tool in children. Here, the authors present the first systematic review aimed at understanding the safety and efficacy of DBS for DRE in pediatric populations, emphasizing patient selection, device placement and programming, and seizure outcomes. METHODS The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recommendations. Relevant articles were identified from 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL) from their inception to November 17, 2017. Inclusion criteria of individual studies were 1) diagnosis of DRE; 2) treatment with DBS; 3) inclusion of at least 1 pediatric patient (age ≤ 18 years); and 4) patient-specific data. Exclusion criteria for the systematic review included 1) missing data for age, DBS target, or seizure freedom; 2) nonhuman subjects; and 3) editorials, abstracts, review articles, and dissertations. RESULTS This review identified 21 studies and 40 unique pediatric patients (ages 4–18 years) who received DBS treatment for epilepsy. There were 18 patients with electrodes placed in the bilateral or unilateral centromedian nucleus of the thalamus (CM) electrodes, 8 patients with bilateral anterior thalamic nucleus (ATN) electrodes, 5 patients with bilateral and unilateral hippocampal electrodes, 3 patients with bilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) and 1 patient with unilateral STN electrodes, 2 patients with bilateral posteromedial hypothalamus electrodes, 2 patients with unilateral mammillothalamic tract electrodes, and 1 patient with caudal zona incerta electrode placement. Overall, 5 of the 40 (12.5%) patients had an International League Against Epilepsy class I (i.e., seizure-free) outcome, and 34 of the 40 (85%) patients had seizure reduction with DBS stimulation. CONCLUSIONS DBS is an alternative or adjuvant treatment for children with DRE. Prospective registries and future clinical trials are needed to identify the optimal DBS target, although favorable outcomes are reported with both CM and ATN in children. ABBREVIATIONS ATN = anterior thalamic nucleus; CM = centromedian nucleus of the thalamus; DBS = deep brain stimulation; DRE = drug-resistant epilepsy; RNS = responsive neurostimulation; STN = subthalamic nucleus; VNS = vagus nerve stimulation.

Intraoperative neurophysiological responses in epileptic patients submitted to hippocampal and thalamic deep brain stimulation

PURPOSE

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used in an increasing frequency for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Acute deep brain macrostimulation intraoperative findings were sparsely published in the literature. We report on our intraoperative macrostimulation findings during thalamic and hippocampal DBS implantation.

METHODS

Eighteen patients were studied. All patients underwent routine pre-operative evaluation that included clinical history, neurological examination, interictal and ictal EEG, high resolution 1.5T MRI and neuropsychological testing. Six patients with temporal lobe epilepsy were submitted to hippocampal DBS (Hip-DBS); 6 patients with focal epilepsy were submitted to anterior thalamic nucleus DBS (AN-DBS) and 6 patients with generalized epilepsy were submitted to centro-median thalamic nucleus DBS (CM-DBS). Age ranged from 9 to 40 years (11 males). All patients were submitted to bilateral quadripolar DBS electrode implantation in a single procedure, under general anesthesia, and intraoperative scalp EEG monitoring. Final electrode's position was checked postoperatively using volumetric CT scanning. Bipolar stimulation using the more proximal and distal electrodes was performed. Final standard stimulation parameters were 6Hz, 4V, 300μs (low frequency range: LF) or 130Hz, 4V, 300μs (high frequency range: HF).

KEY FINDINGS

Bilateral recruiting response (RR) was obtained after unilateral stimulation in all patients submitted to AN and CM-DBS using LF stimulation. RR was widespread but prevailed over the fronto-temporal region bilaterally, and over the stimulated hemisphere. HF stimulation led to background slowing and a DC shift. The mean voltage for the appearance of RR was 4V (CM) and 3V (AN). CM and AN-DBS did not alter inter-ictal spiking frequency or morphology. RR obtained after LF Hip-DBS was restricted to the stimulated temporal lobe and no contralateral activation was noted. HF stimulation yielded no visually recognizable EEG modification. Mean intensity for initial appearance of RR was 3V. In 5 of the 6 patients submitted to Hip-DBS, an increase in inter-ictal spiking was noted unilaterally immediately after electrode insertion. Intraoperative LF stimulation did not modify temporal lobe spiking; on the other hand, HF was effective in abolishing inter-ictal spiking in 4 of the 6 patients studied. There was no immediate morbidity or mortality in this series.

SIGNIFICANCE

Macrostimulation might be used to confirm that the hardware was working properly. There was no typical RR derived from each studied thalamic nuclei after LF stimulation. On the other hand, absence of such RRs was highly suggestive of hardware malfunction or inadequate targeting. Thalamic-DBS (Th-DBS) RR was always bilateral after unilateral stimulation, although they somehow prevailed over the stimulated hemisphere. Contrary to Th-DBS, Hip-DBS gave rise to localized RR over the ipsolateral temporal neocortex, and absence of this response might very likely be related to inadequate targeting or hardware failure. Increased spiking was seen over temporal neocortex during hippocampal electrode insertion; this might point to the more epileptogenic hippocampal region in each individual patient. We did not notice any intraoperative response difference among patients with temporal lobe epilepsy with or without MTS. The relationship between these intraoperative findings and seizure outcome is not yet clear and should be further evaluated.