Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2019 Oct 29;8:F1000 Faculty Rev-1818. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17714.1

Presurgical epilepsy evaluation and epilepsy surgery

Christoph Baumgartner 1,2,3,a, Johannes P Koren 1,2, Martha Britto-Arias 1,2, Lea Zoche 1,2, Susanne Pirker 1,2
PMCID: PMC6820825  PMID: 31700611

Abstract

With a prevalence of 0.8 to 1.2%, epilepsy represents one of the most frequent chronic neurological disorders; 30 to 40% of patients suffer from drug-resistant epilepsy (that is, seizures cannot be controlled adequately with antiepileptic drugs). Epilepsy surgery represents a valuable treatment option for 10 to 50% of these patients. Epilepsy surgery aims to control seizures by resection of the epileptogenic tissue while avoiding neuropsychological and other neurological deficits by sparing essential brain areas. The most common histopathological findings in epilepsy surgery specimens are hippocampal sclerosis in adults and focal cortical dysplasia in children. Whereas presurgical evaluations and surgeries in patients with mesial temporal sclerosis and benign tumors recently decreased in most centers, non-lesional patients, patients requiring intracranial recordings, and neocortical resections increased. Recent developments in neurophysiological techniques (high-density electroencephalography [EEG], magnetoencephalography, electrical and magnetic source imaging, EEG-functional magnetic resonance imaging [EEG-fMRI], and recording of pathological high-frequency oscillations), structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (ultra-high-field imaging at 7 Tesla, novel imaging acquisition protocols, and advanced image analysis [post-processing] techniques), functional imaging (positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography co-registered to MRI), and fMRI significantly improved non-invasive presurgical evaluation and have opened the option of epilepsy surgery to patients previously not considered surgical candidates. Technical improvements of resective surgery techniques facilitate successful and safe operations in highly delicate brain areas like the perisylvian area in operculoinsular epilepsy. Novel less-invasive surgical techniques include stereotactic radiosurgery, MR-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy, and stereotactic intracerebral EEG-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation.

Keywords: epilepsy, surgery, presurgical evaluation

Introduction

Epilepsy has a prevalence of 0.8 to 1.2% and thus represents one of the most frequent chronic neurological disorders 1, 2. In about 30 to 40% of patients, seizures cannot be controlled adequately with antiepileptic drugs; that is, these patients suffer from drug-resistant epilepsy 3, 4. Epilepsy surgery represents a valuable treatment option for 10 to 50% of these patients 4 and has been shown to be significantly superior to continued antiepileptic drug treatment regarding seizure control and quality of life in both children and adults 57. The goals of epilepsy surgery are seizure control by resection of the epileptogenic tissue on the one hand while sparing essential brain areas to avoid neuropsychological and other neurological deficits on the other hand 3, 4, 810. This can be achieved only by a thorough presurgical evaluation clearly delineating epileptogenic and essential brain areas and by defining selective resection strategies in each individual patient 3, 810. Several excellent articles recently reviewed presurgical evaluation and surgical treatment of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy 3, 4, 810. Here, we will focus on some selected recent developments, but we make no claim of providing an exhaustive review.

Trends in presurgical evaluation and surgical treatment in the last few decades

Blumcke et al. 11 reported the largest series of histopathological findings of resected brain tissue. The tissue in this series was obtained from 9523 patients who underwent epilepsy surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy in 36 European centers between 1990 and 2014. The most common pathologies were hippocampal sclerosis (36.4%), tumors (mainly ganglioglioma; 23.6%), and malformations of cortical development (19.8%). No histopathological diagnosis could be established in 7.7%. Whereas the most common diagnosis in adults was hippocampal sclerosis (44.5%), focal cortical dysplasia represented the most prevalent finding in children (39.3%). Several significant changes in patients undergoing presurgical evaluation and epilepsy surgery occurred in the last few decades 1218. Whereas presurgical evaluations continually increased over time, surgical interventions remained stable or decreased in recent years, resulting in an increasing number of evaluated patients ultimately not undergoing surgery 18, 19. Specifically, the number of patients with mesial temporal sclerosis and benign tumors who were evaluated and ultimately underwent surgery decreased over time in most centers. The same holds true for the number of temporal lobe resections in general 16, 18. Reasons for the decrease of mesial temporal epilepsy surgery are intensively debated and could be explained by a decreasing incidence of Ammon’s horn sclerosis, by a reduction of the prevalent pool, or by alternative treatment options available for these patients 15, 1921. On the contrary, non-lesional patients, patients requiring intracranial recordings, and neocortical resections increased 16, 18. Furthermore, more evaluated patients did not undergo surgery since patients were not suitable for surgery (a circumstance due mainly to missing identification of a circumscribed epileptogenic zone) or since more patients offered surgery by physicians opted against it 18. Finally, in some centers, an increase in patients willing to undergo less-invasive surgeries—for example, stereotactic radiosurgery, magnetic resonance (MR)-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy, stereotactic intracerebral electroencephalography (SEEG)-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (RFTC), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and responsive neurostimulation (RNS)—who had previously refused open surgery can be observed 22.

Presurgical evaluation – general issues

Each presurgical evaluation starts with a so-called phase 1 evaluation. Investigations required in all patients include high-resolution MR imaging (MRI), video scalp electroencephalography (EEG), and detailed neuropsychological assessment 8, 23.

If these investigations yield converging evidence on the localization of the epileptogenic zone and provide sufficient information on the risk of potential postoperative deficits, the patient may be referred to surgery directly.

If there are ambiguous results concerning localization of the epileptogenic zone, the following additional phase 1 investigations can be applied 8, 24:

- advanced structural imaging techniques for detection of epileptogenic lesions on MRI;

- interictal high-resolution EEG (HD-EEG), interictal magnetoencephalography (MEG), interictal electrical source imaging (ESI), interictal magnetic source imaging (MSI), and interictal EEG-functional MRI (EEG-fMRI) for accurate delineation of the irritative zone 25;

- interictal 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) or interictal PET with other tracers to localize the functional deficit zone;

- ictal single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), ictal HD-EEG, ictal ESI, and in selected cases ictal MSI and ictal EEG-fMRI to localize the ictal onset zone.

Depending on the lateralization and localization of the planned resection, the risk of potential postoperative deficits can be further clarified by the following complementary phase 1 investigations 8:

- fMRI, MEG, and Wada test for lateralization and localization of language functions;

- fMRI and Wada test for prediction of postoperative memory decline;

- tractography of Meyer’s loop and visual field testing to assess the risk of postoperative visual field defects;

- fMRI and tractography of pyramidal tract to assess the risk of postoperative motor deficits.

Although most centers agree on the essential methods of phase 1 evaluation (that is, high-resolution MRI, video scalp EEG, and detailed neuropsychological assessment), there is a lot of variability across the international community, and some routinely require procedures (for example, PET, SPECT, and MEG) that others may relegate to later stages of the evaluation. If the epileptogenic zone cannot be localized with sufficient certainty with these non-invasive techniques, if non-invasive techniques yield divergent results and/or if the presumed epileptogenic zone is located in close proximity to functionally important brain areas and the patient is still considered a reasonable surgical candidate, intracranial EEG (IEEG) can be applied during a so-called phase 2 evaluation 8, 2426.

Chronic extraoperative IEEG techniques include the following:

- extraoperative IEEG through open craniotomy (CEEG); after the open craniotomy, subdural grids or strips or a combination of depth electrodes and subdural electrodes are placed under direct observation;

- SEEG using intracerebral depth electrodes; usually 5–18 multicontact electrodes are inserted through a twist drill hole or burr hole under general anesthesia. The electrodes are placed stereotactically with a frame, under neuronavigational guidance, or, robotic assistance. The trajectories of the electrodes have to be planned thoroughly to avoid crossing blood vessels;

- hybrid extraoperative EEG (HEEG) consisting of a hybrid of CEEG and SEEG;

- foramen ovale IEEG with multicontact electrodes placed to lie along the long axis of the hippocampus (usually bilaterally);

- epidural IEEG using epidural peg electrodes, allowing sampling from several cortical areas, even distant ones 26.

It should be mentioned that in many centers there has been a shift from CEEG to SEEG, which is less invasive and much more comfortable for patients. Ideally, the modality best suited for each individual patient should be applied in accordance with standardized protocols 26.

Intraoperative electrocorticography (ECoG) where IEEG recordings and electrical stimulation mapping (ESM) are performed intraoperatively prior to, during, and often following resection using subdural, depth, or wick electrodes placed under direct visualization or guided by neuronavigation represents an additional option, especially in patients with cortical dysplasia, tuberous sclerosis, or scalp EEG with continuous epileptiform discharges (CEDs), when extraoperative intracranial EEG is not feasible and finally when surgery is performed adjacent to language or motor cortex 25. The diagnostic utility, strengths and limitations, risks/morbidities, and specific indications of various IEEG techniques were summarized in a consensus-based expert recommendation 26.

Neurophysiological techniques

Recent advances in clinical neurophysiology include localization of the irritative zone (that is, the interictal spike zone with ESI, MSI, and EEG-fMRI). ESI and MSI represent biophysical models which allow us to calculate from the EEG resp. MEG signals measured on the scalp the intracerebral neuronal sources generating these signals, that is solving the so-called inverse problem of clinical neurophysiology 27, 28. Localization accuracy and sensitivity of EEG can be significantly improved when the number of electrodes is increased beyond the standard 10-20 system 29 and when montages sampling inferior temporal areas with electrodes around and below the ears and on the cheeks and neck are used 30, 31. HD-EEG set-ups currently use 128 to 256 EEG electrodes 32, 33. In a study comparing various non-invasive techniques (that is, structural MRI, HD-ESI, PET, and SPECT), the combination of MRI and HD-ESI offered the highest predictive value for postoperative seizure freedom 34. The sensitivity of MEG for the detection of interictal spikes on ECoG was assessed in a study using simultaneous MEG and ECoG recordings 35. Of all of the interictal ECoG spikes, 56% had an interictal MEG counterpart. The rates of association between MEG and ECoG were at least 90% in the interhemispheric and frontal orbital regions; about 75% in the superior frontal, central, and lateral temporal regions; but only about 25% in the mesial temporal region 35. Recently, spectral and functional connectivity properties of non-invasively obtained HD-EEG and MEG virtual electrodes matched those of SEEG recordings. HD-EEG and MEG virtual electrodes therefore might be used for optimal SEEG planning, making the localization of the seizure onset zone safer and more successful 36. The yield of simultaneous scalp EEG-fMRI studies (40 to 70% of recordings remain inconclusive and this is due principally to the absence of interictal epileptiform discharges during simultaneous recordings or lack of hemodynamic changes correlated to interictal epileptiform discharges) can be significantly increased by building epilepsy-specific electroencephalographic voltage maps using averaged interictal epileptiform discharges recorded during long-term clinical monitoring outside the scanner, computing the correlation of these maps with EEG recordings in the scanner for each time frame, and using the time course of this correlation coefficient as a regressor for fMRI analysis to map hemodynamic changes related to these epilepsy-specific maps (topography-related hemodynamic changes) 37. With this technique, scalp EEG-fMRI results can be obtained even in the absence of visually detectable spikes during the EEG-fMRI session 37. In a recent study in 53 children including MRI-negative cases, the combination of EEG-fMRI with ESI could localize the seizure onset zone with high accuracy and predicted surgical outcome in all patients 38.

Localizations obtained by interictal ESI, MSI, and EEG-fMRI showed excellent agreement both with the irritative zone delineated by intracranial electrodes and with the epileptogenic zone defined by other investigations 32, 35, 36, 39, 40. Furthermore, complete resection of the irritative zone defined by these methods resulted in a favorable surgical outcome 32, 38, 39, 41.

Recently, ictal ESI was successfully applied for localization of the ictal onset zone 4250. Ictal MSI is also feasible but is limited by the fact that long-term MEG recordings cannot be performed and it remains difficult to catch seizures during short-term MEG recordings 5154.

It should be noted that automated techniques exist to perform both interictal and ictal ESI 25, 42.

Pathological high-frequency oscillations (pHFOs) in the frequency range of 100 to 600 Hz are considered biomarkers of epileptogenic tissue 5558. It could be shown that pHFOs, while initially recorded only on invasive EEG, can also be recorded non-invasively on scalp EEG and MEG 57, 5962. pHFOs are of high localizing significance, and removal of brain areas generating pHFOs predicts a favorable postsurgical seizure control 57, 6365. Recently, it was shown that pHFO activity may change during surgery and that removal of post-resection pHFO can further improve surgical outcome 66. However, the added value of pHFOs compared with interictal spikes is still discussed in the community and combined measures of spikes and pHFOs might improve identification of epileptogenic tissue 67.

Cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) in conjunction with neuroimaging techniques like diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) have recently been successfully applied to identify both epileptogenic and functional networks 6872.

Structural neuroimaging

Progress in structural neuroimaging has revolutionized presurgical epilepsy evaluation in recent years 7375. Structural neuroimaging aims to identify an epileptogenic lesion responsible for the patient’s seizures which in turn significantly increases the chances of postoperative seizure freedom 76, 77. However, 15 to 30% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy remain MRI-negative; that is, no structural lesion can be identified 73, 78, 79. A widely accepted imaging protocol for epilepsy-specific imaging based on six sequences could identify 99.4% of 2740 epileptogenic lesions and provides a reasonable balance between diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility 80. This protocol includes 3D volumetric T1-weighted imaging (1-mm isotropic voxels) (detection of malformations of cortical development and application of post-processing techniques), axial and coronal T2-weighted (T2/short tau inversion recovery [STIR]) imaging (assessment of hippocampal architecture and cystic tissue components of other lesions), axial and coronal fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences (detection of hippocampal sclerosis, focal cortical dysplasia, tumors, inflammation, and scars), and axial T2* gradient echo or susceptibility-weighted (Hemo/Calc) sequences (identification of vascular and calcified lesions such as cavernomas and arteriovenous malformations) 73, 80.

The detection of lesions, especially of focal cortical dysplasia and hippocampal sclerosis, can be significantly increased by improvements of imaging hardware (including ultra-high-field imaging at 7 Tesla), by novel imaging acquisition protocols, and by advanced image analysis (post-processing) techniques 73.

Ultra-high-field imaging at 7-Tesla MRI in patients with hippocampal sclerosis showed a strong correlation between MRI and histology with sensitivity and specificity values up to 100% for the detection of pathology in various hippocampal subfields 81. Seven-Tesla MRI including whole-brain FLAIR and gradient-recalled echo (GRE) images could detect epileptogenic focal cortical dysplasia not visible at conventional field strengths in a third of cases, while gliosis remained undetected 82.

Advances in imaging acquisition protocols can be useful to detect lesions which cannot be identified by using routine imaging protocols 73. Double inversion recovery suppresses the signals from both cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and normal white matter and therefore enhances the detection of cortical lesions otherwise masked by white matter or CSF signal 83. Arterial spin labeling provides a quantitative measure of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and demonstrated a reduced regional perfusion in the seizure onset zone - in good agreement with hypometabolism on PET - in MRI-negative patients 84. Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) represents an advanced diffusion imaging technique that provides more detailed information on tissue microstructure, including intracellular volume fraction, a marker of neurite density, and was helpful to identify focal cortical dysplasia in MRI-negative patients 85.

Several post-processing methods, including voxel-based morphometry, T2-relaxometry, surface-based morphometry, or DTI recently combined with machine learning approaches, can be useful for the identification of lesions not apparent on visual MRI analysis 73, 74, 8694.

Neuropsychological assessment

Cognitive impairments in epilepsy can be caused by underlying pathology, seizures, interictal spikes, antiepileptic drugs, and psychiatric comorbidities 95. Although neuropsychological assessment remains an essential investigation during presurgical evaluation, the advent of high-resolution structural and functional brain imaging as well as sophisticated EEG analysis techniques has shifted the main focus of neuropsychology from localization toward prediction of postsurgical cognitive outcome and quality control of epilepsy surgery 9597. The major factors determining postsurgical neuropsychological performance include functional integrity of the resected tissue, functional reserve capacity of the remaining brain, the degree of functional plasticity, postoperative control of epileptic activity, and the effects of quantitative and qualitative postsurgical antiepileptic drug changes 10, 9799. However, it is still not possible to predict with certainty which patient will experience disabling functional loss on an individual scale 100. Several studies showed stable or even improved long-term postsurgical cognitive outcomes, especially in seizure-free patients 101103. In regard to cognitive outcomes of different surgical approaches, individual and selective surgery preserving functional brain tissue and fiber tracts, thus minimizing collateral damage, should be preferred 104. Although radiosurgery or thermocoagulation should be advantageous from this perspective, no clear scientific evidence of a superior cognitive outcome of these procedures compared with conventional open surgery currently exists 98. Recommendations for a standardized neuropsychological assessment in the preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up of epilepsy surgery patients have been published by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Neuropsychology Task Force Diagnostic Methods Commission 105, 106. Neuropsychological assessments of patients undergoing MRI-guided stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampectomy resulting in very small focal lesions showed outcomes not consistent with prevailing models of brain function. Thus, the hippocampus does not appear to be an essential component of neural networks underlying naming, verbal fluency, object and person recognition, and declarative verbal memory 107, 108. Furthermore, white matter tracts have been proven to be crucial for language and semantic networks. The basal temporal language area is likely a critical hub in the language network 109. Therefore, MRI-guided stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampectomy offers a unique opportunity to study structure–function brain relationships and to reappraise many of our models of cognitive networks 107. Moreover, traditional neuropsychological assessment does not include many cognitive domains of potentially high clinical relevance, including category-specific naming and fluency as well as object and face recognition, for epilepsy patients in their everyday lives 110. Future neuropsychological testing should integrate sensory and linguistic/semantic information with the existing knowledge of the patient, explore memory consolidation over long periods of time, and attempt to relate cognition to features of signal processing in order to better assess cognitive networks and to provide objective measures accounting for subjective cognitive complaints of the patients 110.

Positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography

The role of PET and SPECT in presurgical evaluation was recently reviewed by several authors 8, 73, 74, 111. FDG-PET assessing interictal brain dysfunction (that is, the functional deficit zone) has been used during presurgical evaluation for more than 35 years 112. In mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE), FDG-PET shows a widespread ipsilateral hypometabolism involving the temporal lobe (that is, mesial temporal structures, temporal pole, and lateral temporal cortex) as well as extratemporal areas (including the insula, the frontal lobe, perisylvian regions, and the thalamus). This hypometabolism is more pronounced in right as compared with left MTLE 113. The topography of hypometabolism on PET showed a strong correlation with the extent of the electroclinical network defined by clinical seizure semiology and EEG 113. Homotopic contralateral hypermetabolism indicating possible compensatory mechanisms was relatively higher in patients with left-sided MTLE and in female patients but was lower with longer disease duration, later onset of epilepsy, and higher seizure frequency 113. These findings indicate that MTLE is not a focal but rather a network disease that can affect interconnected and even distant brain areas 114, 115. Hypometabolic patterns on FDG-PET were predictive for surgical outcome in patients with MTLE 116, 117. Specifically, non-class IA outcome correlated with extratemporal metabolic changes whereas class IA outcome was associated with a focal anteromesial temporal hypometabolism 116.

In MRI-negative temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), a hypometabolism ipsilateral to the presumed epileptogenic zone is a predictor for a favorable surgical outcome 118. Thus, in patients with MRI-negative FDG-PET–positive TLE, an excellent surgical outcome can be achieved after anterior temporal lobectomy (and this is very similar to the outcome in patients with hippocampal sclerosis on MRI) 119121. These patients probably do not need to undergo intracranial recordings, especially if seizures arise from the non-dominant temporal lobe 120, 121.

In MRI-negative extratemporal lobe epilepsy (ETLE), FDG-PET co-registered with MRI is highly sensitive to detect focal cortical dysplasia and thus significantly improves diagnosis and surgical outcome of these patients 122. In a recent series of patients with histologically proven focal cortical dysplasia type 2 with negative or doubtful MRI, FDG-PET co-registered with MRI correctly localized the focal cortical dysplasia in 83% of patients, resulting in excellent surgical outcome after limited resections (seizure-free outcome in 94% of patients and Engel class IA in 72%) 123. Automated easy-to-use quantification of FDG PET-computed tomography was clearly superior to visual analysis for the identification of the epileptogenic zone in patients with probable frontal cortical dysplasia (concordance for automated quantification 72.7% versus 22.7% for visual analysis) 124. Recently, machine learning approaches using a classifier based on optimized cortical surface sampling of combined MRI and PET features were superior to both quantitative MRI and multimodal visual analysis for the detection of focal cortical dysplasia (93% versus 82% versus 68%) 125.

Ictal SPECT provides information on changes of rCBF—which is considered a surrogate marker of increased neuronal activity—in the seizure onset zone. Ictal SPECT is applied primarily in MRI-negative extratemporal cases or in patients with discordant findings from other investigations 74. The sensitivity and specificity of visual ictal SPECT interpretation (that is, visual comparison of ictal and interictal studies) can be significantly improved by subtraction SPECT co-registered to MRI (SISCOM) (that is, subtracting interictal from ictal SPECT with co-registration to MRI) 126. However, a major limitation of SISCOM is that normal physiologic variations between scans cannot be accounted for 127. Statistical parametric mapping (SPM)-based methods using a normal database can identify changes in rCBF which are statistically significantly different from normal on a voxel-by-voxel basis. One of these methods—statistical ictal SPECT co-registered to MRI (STATISCOM)—was superior to SISCOM in patients with TLE 128. Recently, a commercially available and easy-to-use software package (MIMneuro, MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA) became available for ictal/interictal SPECT and MRI analysis. In a recent article, these three methods were systematically compared 127. STATISCOM, closely followed by MIMneuro, showed the best performance for seizure localization, and both were superior to SISCOM 127.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging

fMRI is used mainly for localization of eloquent cortex and to predict postoperative language as well as memory outcomes 8, 73, 74. Recently, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), in a practice guideline, assessed diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of fMRI in determining lateralization and predicting postsurgical language and memory outcomes 129.

The authors performed a meta-analysis and concluded that language lateralization based on fMRI was concordant with the Wada test in MTLE (concordance rate of 87%) and in ETLE (concordance rate of 81%) but that data were insufficient for temporal tumors or lateral temporal cases 129. Indeed, fMRI has replaced the Wada test for language lateralization in many centers 73, 74. According to the practice guideline, fMRI is possibly effective to predict postsurgical language deficits in patients undergoing temporal lobectomy 129. A stronger left temporal activation during a semantic decision task predicted a greater postoperative naming decline with a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 73%, and a positive predictive value of 81% and was superior to the predictive value of the Wada test (sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 45%, and positive predictive value of 67%) 130. In patients with left TLE, left frontal MRI activation during a verbal fluency task predicted a postoperative decline in verbal naming after left temporal lobe resections with good sensitivity (100%) but poor specificity (33%) and a positive predictive value of 60% 131. Auditory and visual naming tasks eliciting anterior temporal activations are more related to naming and can provide more consistent predictive values with higher specificity 132. A recent machine learning study used a support vector regression (SVR) model and the results of multimodal presurgical language mapping, including fMRI, MEG, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and high-gamma ECoG (hgECoG), to predict postoperative language outcome. The SVR model consisting of fMRI and MEG was the optimal model that facilitated the best trade-off between model complexity and prediction accuracy 133.

In regard to language localization in patients with resections close to language cortex, cortical stimulation mapping from chronically indwelling electrodes or during awake craniotomy is generally considered the necessary gold standard 73, 134. However, in a recent study in patients with frontal lobe epilepsy, a significant postoperative naming decline was observed when the resection overlapped with language fMRI activation, even when electrocortical stimulation results were negative for language function in these areas 135. These findings support the role of fMRI for presurgical language localization 74.

In patients with TLE, re-organization of memory-encoding networks involves both ipsi- and contra-lateral temporal but also extratemporal brain areas 136. Furthermore, dynamic postoperative changes of these networks occur after left and right temporal lobe resections in both verbal and visual domains 137. Specifically, the contralateral hippocampus influences memory outcome 12 months after surgery 137. The AAN practice guideline recommended memory fMRI to lateralize and predict verbal and non-verbal memory outcome after temporal lobe surgery 129. In left TLE, left anterior hippocampal but also left frontal fMRI activation during verbal encoding correlated significantly with greater verbal memory decline after left anterior temporal lobe resections while ipsilateral posterior hippocampal activation was associated with better postoperative verbal memory outcome 138, 139. In right TLE, predominantly right anterior hippocampal activation during face encoding was predictive of a greater decline of visual memory after right anterior temporal lobe resection while predominantly right-sided posterior hippocampal activation correlated with better postoperative visual memory 138. In a recent study, lateralization of memory fMRI activations using a picture recognition paradigm predicted postoperative verbal and visual memory outcome independent of the type of lesion, the side of the epileptic focus, or the type of preoperative memory profile (typical or atypical) 140.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that, during presurgical epilepsy evaluation in a clinical setting, correct and clinically useful interpretation of fMRI strongly depends on the individual investigator’s and center’s expertise. Indeed, the authors of the AAN practice guideline stated that there is still a great need for further research in this area and that clinicians should carefully advise patients of the risks and benefits of fMRI versus Wada test during discussions concerning the choice of a specific modality in each individual case 129. In conclusion, both the Wada test and fMRI have their specific indications and limitations.

Surgical techniques

Resective epilepsy surgery is still primarily lesion-directed because complete resection of an epileptogenic lesion represents the major determinant for a favorable surgical outcome 8. In non-lesional TLE, surgery can be performed on the basis of non-invasive phase 1 investigations, especially if seizures arise from the non-dominant hemisphere. On the contrary, in non-lesional extratemporal epilepsies, resections have to rely on an exact delineation of the electro-clinically defined seizure onset zone by intracranial recordings 26, 141.

Epilepsy surgeries requiring an operculoinsulectomy pose significant difficulties because the perisylvian area is highly vascular, deep, and functional. Recently, successful surgical treatment of operculoinsular epilepsy (Engel class I seizure control in 80% of patients) with an acceptable long-term complication rate was reported 142.

Novel surgical techniques in clinical use include stereotactic radiosurgery, MR-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MgLiTT), and SEEG-guided RFTC 8, 10.

A 2016 meta-analysis on stereotactic radiosurgery in TLE including 13 studies showed a pooled seizure-free rate of 50.9% (with a significant heterogeneity between studies ranging from 0 to 86%) 143. The most frequent adverse events were visual field deficits, headache, and verbal memory impairment 143. A systematic review and practice guideline of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society concluded that radiosurgery was effective to control seizures in MTLE (possibly with better neuropsychological outcomes and quality-of-life metrics in selected subjects compared with microsurgery) and that radiosurgery had a better risk-benefit ratio for small hypothalamic hamartomas compared with surgical methods. However, the delayed therapeutic effect with ongoing seizures carries significant morbidity and mortality risks. For other indications, including corpus callosotomy, cavernomas malformations, and ETLE, evidence was insufficient to make recommendations 144.

MgLiTT entails the focused application of thermal energy in the form of intense light to tissue anywhere within the intracranial space in conjunction with real-time MR thermography, which is used to monitor the delivery of this energy producing a 5- to 20-mm-diameter ablation zone 145. MgLiTT has been used for the treatment of various epileptogenic conditions, including MTLE, hypothalamic hamartomas, periventricular nodular heterotopia, tuberous sclerosis, cortical dysplasia, cavernous hemangiomas, and insular encephalomalacia 146, 147. In MTLE, seizure outcome was similar to or slightly worse than that of open surgery while cognitive outcome was better 107, 108, 145, 147150. In a series of 71 hypothalamic hamartoma patients operated with MgLiTT, 93% were free of gelastic seizures at one year. One patient experienced a significant memory deficit, and one patient experienced worsening diabetes insipidus. Thus, MgLiTT represents a safe and effective surgical option for the treatment of hypothalamic hamartomas 151. Advantages of MgLiTT include its minimally invasiveness with better tolerability and quicker recovery time, fewer major complications, possibly a lower degree of adverse cognitive effects and the fact that it can be repeated and does not preclude subsequent surgery 10, 147.

Total or partial destruction of the epileptogenic zone as tailored to each patient by SEEG exploration is the goal of SEEG-guided RFTC. A radiofrequency generator connected to the electrode contacts is used to produce multiple SEEG-guided RFTC lesions of epileptic foci 152. SEEG-guided RFTC has been performed in hippocampal sclerosis, periventricular nodular heterotopias, focal cortical dysplasia, tuberous sclerosis and in patients with normal MRI 152160. According to a recent review, seizure-free rate was rather heterogeneous across studies with a pooled seizure-free rate of 23% and a pooled responder rate of 58% 159. The highest responder rate was observed in patients with nodular heterotopia, the lowest in patients with normal MRI. The pooled rate of permanent neurologic deficit was 2.5%. The authors concluded that SEEG-guided RFTC represents a safe treatment for patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy when conventional resective surgery is not feasible 159.

In a significant number of patients with medically refractory epilepsy, curative epilepsy surgery cannot be offered since there are multiple epileptogenic zones, the epileptogenic zone cannot be localized at all, or the epileptogenic zone is located within functionally relevant brain areas. For these patients, various neurostimulation techniques, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), DBS, and RNS, are becoming an increasingly accepted treatment option and therefore should be considered in every patient with medically refractory epilepsy who is unsuitable for surgery 161. However, in contrast to resective and ablative epilepsy surgery, these neuromodulatory techniques represent palliative procedures resulting in seizure reduction at best, and seizure-free outcome only in exceptional cases. A recent review found low- to moderate-quality evidence for the efficacy and safety of VNS, DBS, and RNS 161. Head-to-head comparisons between different neuromodulatory techniques are missing and, owing to methodological difficulties, most probably will not be available in the near future 161. Therefore, at present, it is not possible to decide which treatment modality is best suited for a specific patient population and thereby allow personalized treatment decisions.

Conclusions

Epilepsy surgery represents a valuable treatment options for 10 to 50% of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The most common histopathological findings in epilepsy surgery specimens are hippocampal sclerosis in adults and focal cortical dysplasia in children. Whereas presurgical evaluations and surgeries in patients with mesial temporal sclerosis and benign tumors recently decreased in most centers, non-lesional patients, patients requiring intracranial recordings, and neocortical resections increased. More evaluated patients did not undergo surgery since patients were not suitable for surgery (due mainly to missing identification of a circumscribed epileptogenic zone) or since more patients offered surgery by physicians opted against surgery.

The prerequisite for successful epilepsy surgery is a thorough presurgical evaluation clearly defining epileptogenic and essential brain areas and designing a resection plan in each individual patient. Phase 1 presurgical investigations include high-resolution MRI, video scalp EEG, and detailed neuropsychological assessment. If these investigations yield inconclusive or ambiguous results, additional non-invasive techniques can be used. If the epileptogenic zone cannot be localized with sufficient certainty with non-invasive techniques and the patient is still considered a reasonable surgical candidate, intracranial recordings with depth or subdural electrodes (or both) can be applied during a so-called phase 2 evaluation.

Recent developments in neurophysiological techniques (high-density EEG, MEG, ESI and MSI, EEG-fMRI, and recording of pHFOs), structural MRI (ultra-high-field imaging at 7 Tesla, novel imaging acquisition protocols, and advanced image analysis [post-processing] techniques), functional imaging (PET and SPECT co-registered to MRI), and fMRI significantly improved non-invasive presurgical evaluation and have opened the option of epilepsy surgery to patients previously not considered surgical candidates.

Technical improvements of resective surgery techniques facilitate successful and safe operations in highly delicate brain areas like the perisylvian area in operculoinsular epilepsy. Novel less-invasive surgical techniques include stereotactic radiosurgery, MgLiTT, and SEEG-guided RFTC.

Abbreviations

3D, three-dimensional; AAN, American Academy of Neurology; CEEG, extraoperative intracranial electroencephalography through open craniotomy; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; DBS, deep brain stimulation; DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; ECoG, intraoperative electrocorticography; EEG, electroencephalography; EEG-fMRI, electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging; ESI, electrical source imaging; ETLE, extratemporal lobe epilepsy; FDG, 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose; FLAIR, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery; fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; HD-EEG, high-resolution electroencephalography; IEEG, intracranial electroencephalography; MEG, magnetoencephalography; MgLiTT, magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy; MR, magnetic resonance; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MSI, magnetic source imaging; MTLE, mesial temporal lobe epilepsy; PET, positron emission tomography; pHFO, pathological high-frequency oscillations; rCBF, regional cerebral blood flow; RNS, responsive neurostimulation; SEEG, stereotactic intracerebral electroencephalography; SEEG-guided RFTC, stereotactic intracerebral electroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation; SISCOM, subtraction single-photon emission computed tomography co-registered to magnetic resonance imaging; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography; STATISCOM, statistical ictal single-photon emission computed tomography co-registered to magnetic resonance imaging; SVR, support vector regression; TLE, temporal lobe epilepsy; VNS, vagus nerve stimulation

Editorial Note on the Review Process

F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty and are edited as a service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the referees provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The referees who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).

The referees who approved this article are:

  • Pieter van Mierlo, Department of Electronics and Information Systems, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

  • Daniel L Drane, Department of Neurology and Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

References

  • 1. Bell GS, Neligan A, Sander JW: An unknown quantity--the worldwide prevalence of epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2014;55(7):958–62. 10.1111/epi.12605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Zack MM, Kobau R: National and State Estimates of the Numbers of Adults and Children with Active Epilepsy - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(31):821–5. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6631a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Jobst BC, Cascino GD: Resective epilepsy surgery for drug-resistant focal epilepsy: a review. JAMA. 2015;313(3):285–93. 10.1001/jama.2014.17426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Engel J, Jr: The current place of epilepsy surgery. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(2):192–7. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Wiebe S, Blume WT, Girvin JP, et al. : A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(5):311–8. 10.1056/NEJM200108023450501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Engel J, Jr, McDermott MP, Wiebe S, et al. : Early surgical therapy for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307(9):922–30. 10.1001/jama.2012.220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 7. Dwivedi R, Ramanujam B, Chandra PS, et al. : Surgery for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy in Children. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(17):1639–47. 10.1056/NEJMoa1615335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 8. Ryvlin P, Cross JH, Rheims S: Epilepsy surgery in children and adults. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(11):1114–26. 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70156-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Rathore C, Radhakrishnan K: Concept of epilepsy surgery and presurgical evaluation. Epileptic Disord. 2015;17(1):19–31; quiz 31. 10.1684/epd.2014.0720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Vakharia VN, Duncan JS, Witt J-A, et al. : Getting the best outcomes from epilepsy surgery. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(4):676–90. 10.1002/ana.25205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 11. Blumcke I, Spreafico R, Haaker G, et al. : Histopathological Findings in Brain Tissue Obtained during Epilepsy Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(17):1648–56. 10.1056/NEJMoa1703784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 12. Englot DJ, Ouyang D, Garcia PA, et al. : Epilepsy surgery trends in the United States, 1990-2008. Neurology. 2012;78(16):1200–6. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318250d7ea [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 13. Bien CG, Raabe AL, Schramm J, et al. : Trends in presurgical evaluation and surgical treatment of epilepsy at one centre from 1988-2009. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2013;84(1):54–61. 10.1136/jnnp-2011-301763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Neligan A, Haliasos N, Pettorini B, et al. : A survey of adult and pediatric epilepsy surgery in the United Kingdom. Epilepsia. 2013;54(5):e62–e65. 10.1111/epi.12148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Helmstaedter C, May TW, von Lehe M, et al. : Temporal lobe surgery in Germany from 1988 to 2008: diverse trends in etiological subgroups. Eur J Neurol. 2014;21(6):827–34. 10.1111/ene.12322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Jehi L, Friedman D, Carlson C, et al. : The evolution of epilepsy surgery between 1991 and 2011 in nine major epilepsy centers across the United States, Germany, and Australia. Epilepsia. 2015;56(10):1526–33. 10.1111/epi.13116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Kaiboriboon K, Malkhachroum AM, Zrik A, et al. : Epilepsy surgery in the United States: Analysis of data from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers. Epilepsy Res. 2015;116:105–9. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2015.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Cloppenborg T, May TW, Blümcke I, et al. : Trends in epilepsy surgery: stable surgical numbers despite increasing presurgical volumes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2016;87(12):1322–9. 10.1136/jnnp-2016-313831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Dugan P, Carlson C, Jetté N, et al. : Derivation and initial validation of a surgical grading scale for the preliminary evaluation of adult patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2017;58(5):792–800. 10.1111/epi.13730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 20. Butler TA, Dugan P, French J: Why is mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with Ammon's horn sclerosis becoming less common? Eur J Neurol. 2015;22(1):e12. 10.1111/ene.12570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. French J, Friedman D: The evolving landscape of epilepsy neuropathology. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(3):202–3. 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30429-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Gross RE, Stern MA, Willie JT, et al. : Stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampotomy for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(3):575–87. 10.1002/ana.25180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Baumgartner C, Pirker S: Presurgical evaluation in adults: noninvasive. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;108:841–866. 10.1016/B978-0-444-52899-5.00032-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Baumgartner C, Lehner-Baumgartner E: The functional deficit zone - general principles. In: Lüders HO (ed) Textbook of Epilepsy Surgery.Informa Healthcare, London,2008;781–791. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Baroumand AG, van Mierlo P, Strobbe G, et al. : Automated EEG source imaging: A retrospective, blinded clinical validation study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(11):2403–10. 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.09.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 26. Jayakar P, Gotman J, Harvey AS, et al. : Diagnostic utility of invasive EEG for epilepsy surgery: Indications, modalities, and techniques. Epilepsia. 2016;57(11):1735–47. 10.1111/epi.13515 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Baumgartner C, Pataraia E, Lindinger G, et al. : Magnetoencephalography in focal epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2000;41 Suppl 3:S39–47. 10.1111/j.1528-1157.2000.tb01533.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Baumgartner C, Pataraia E: Revisiting the role of magnetoencephalography in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19(2):181–6. 10.1097/01.wco.0000218236.44969.67 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Lantz G, Grave de Peralta R, Spinelli L, et al. : Epileptic source localization with high density EEG: How many electrodes are needed? Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;114(1):63–9. 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00337-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Song J, Davey C, Poulsen C, et al. : EEG source localization: Sensor density and head surface coverage. J Neurosci Methods. 2015;256:9–21. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Seeck M, Koessler L, Bast T, et al. : The standardized EEG electrode array of the IFCN. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128(10):2070–7. 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Brodbeck V, Spinelli L, Lascano AM, et al. : Electrical source imaging for presurgical focus localization in epilepsy patients with normal MRI. Epilepsia. 2010;51(4):583–91. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02521.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Mégevand P, Seeck M: Electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography and source localization: Their value in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(2):176–83. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Lascano AM, Perneger T, Vulliemoz S, et al. : Yield of MRI, high-density electric source imaging (HD-ESI), SPECT and PET in epilepsy surgery candidates. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(1):150–5. 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.03.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 35. Agirre-Arrizubieta Z, Huiskamp GJ, Ferrier CH, et al. : Interictal magnetoencephalography and the irritative zone in the electrocorticogram. Brain. 2009;132(Pt 11):3060–71. 10.1093/brain/awp137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Juárez-Martinez EL, Nissen IA, Idema S, et al. : Virtual localization of the seizure onset zone: Using non-invasive MEG virtual electrodes at stereo-EEG electrode locations in refractory epilepsy patients. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;19:758–66. 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 37. Grouiller F, Thornton RC, Groening K, et al. : With or without spikes: Localization of focal epileptic activity by simultaneous electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 10):2867–86. 10.1093/brain/awr156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Centeno M, Tierney TM, Perani S, et al. : Combined electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging and electrical source imaging improves localization of pediatric focal epilepsy. Ann Neurol. 2017;82(2):278–87. 10.1002/ana.25003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 39. Jung J, Bouet R, Delpuech C, et al. : The value of magnetoencephalography for seizure-onset zone localization in magnetic resonance imaging-negative partial epilepsy. Brain. 2013;136(Pt 10):3176–86. 10.1093/brain/awt213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Knowlton RC, Razdan SN, Limdi N, et al. : Effect of epilepsy magnetic source imaging on intracranial electrode placement. Ann Neurol. 2009;65(6):716–23. 10.1002/ana.21660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Thornton R, Vulliemoz S, Rodionov R, et al. : Epileptic networks in focal cortical dysplasia revealed using electroencephalography-functional magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol. 2011;70(5):822–37. 10.1002/ana.22535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Koren J, Gritsch G, Pirker S, et al. : Automatic ictal onset source localization in presurgical epilepsy evaluation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(6):1291–9. 10.1016/j.clinph.2018.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Nemtsas P, Birot G, Pittau F, et al. : Source localization of ictal epileptic activity based on high-density scalp EEG data. Epilepsia. 2017;58(6):1027–36. 10.1111/epi.13749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Staljanssens W, Strobbe G, Van Holen R, et al. : EEG source connectivity to localize the seizure onset zone in patients with drug resistant epilepsy. Neuroimage Clin. 2017;16:689–98. 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.09.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Staljanssens W, Strobbe G, Holen RV, et al. : Seizure Onset Zone Localization from Ictal High-Density EEG in Refractory Focal Epilepsy. Brain Topogr. 2017;30(2):257–71. 10.1007/s10548-016-0537-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Beniczky S, Lantz G, Rosenzweig I, et al. : Source localization of rhythmic ictal EEG activity: a study of diagnostic accuracy following STARD criteria. Epilepsia. 2013;54(10):1743–52. 10.1111/epi.12339 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Beniczky S, Rosenzweig I, Scherg M, et al. : Ictal EEG source imaging in presurgical evaluation: High agreement between analysis methods. Seizure. 2016;43:1–5. 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.09.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Sharma P, Scherg M, Pinborg LH, et al. : Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation: a prospective study. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25(9):1154–60. 10.1111/ene.13676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Habib MA, Ibrahim F, Mohktar MS, et al. : Ictal EEG Source Imaging for Presurgical Evaluation of Refractory Focal Epilepsy. World Neurosurg. 2016;88:576–85. 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.10.096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Kuo CC, Tucker DM, Luu P, et al. : EEG source imaging of epileptic activity at seizure onset. Epilepsy Res. 2018;146:160–71. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Ramanujam B, Bharti K, Viswanathan V, et al. : Can ictal-MEG obviate the need for phase II monitoring in people with drug-refractory epilepsy? A prospective observational study. Seizure. 2017;45:17–23. 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 52. Pellegrino G, Hedrich T, Chowdhury R, et al. : Source localization of the seizure onset zone from ictal EEG/MEG data. Hum Brain Mapp. 2016;37(7):2528–46. 10.1002/hbm.23191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Badier JM, Bénar CG, Woodman M, et al. : Ictal Magnetic Source Imaging in Presurgical Assessment. Brain Topogr. 2016;29(1):182–92. 10.1007/s10548-015-0445-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Jeong W, Kim JS, Chung CK: Usefulness of multiple frequency band source localizations in ictal MEG. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1049–56. 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.07.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Bragin A, Engel J, Jr, Wilson CL, et al. : Hippocampal and entorhinal cortex high-frequency oscillations (100--500 Hz) in human epileptic brain and in kainic acid--treated rats with chronic seizures. Epilepsia. 1999;40(2):127–37. 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1999.tb02065.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Jacobs J, Levan P, Châtillon CE, et al. : High frequency oscillations in intracranial EEGs mark epileptogenicity rather than lesion type. Brain. 2009;132(Pt 4):1022–37. 10.1093/brain/awn351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Frauscher B, Bartolomei F, Kobayashi K, et al. : High-frequency oscillations: The state of clinical research. Epilepsia. 2017;58(8):1316–29. 10.1111/epi.13829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Jiruska P, Alvarado-Rojas C, Schevon CA, et al. : Update on the mechanisms and roles of high-frequency oscillations in seizures and epileptic disorders. Epilepsia. 2017;58(8):1330–9. 10.1111/epi.13830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Kobayashi K, Watanabe Y, Inoue T, et al. : Scalp-recorded high-frequency oscillations in childhood sleep-induced electrical status epilepticus. Epilepsia. 2010;51(10):2190–4. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02565.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Andrade-Valenca LP, Dubeau F, Mari F, et al. : Interictal scalp fast oscillations as a marker of the seizure onset zone. Neurology. 2011;77(6):524–31. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318228bee2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. van Klink N, Hillebrand A, Zijlmans M: Identification of epileptic high frequency oscillations in the time domain by using MEG beamformer-based virtual sensors. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(1):197–208. 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. von Ellenrieder N, Pellegrino G, Hedrich T, et al. : Detection and Magnetic Source Imaging of Fast Oscillations (40-160 Hz) Recorded with Magnetoencephalography in Focal Epilepsy Patients. Brain Topogr. 2016;29(2):218–31. 10.1007/s10548-016-0471-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Jacobs J, Zijlmans M, Zelmann R, et al. : High-frequency electroencephalographic oscillations correlate with outcome of epilepsy surgery. Ann Neurol. 2010;67(2):209–20. 10.1002/ana.21847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Wu JY, Sankar R, Lerner JT, et al. : Removing interictal fast ripples on electrocorticography linked with seizure freedom in children. Neurology. 2010;75(19):1686–94. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181fc27d0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Höller Y, Kutil R, Klaffenböck L, et al. : High-frequency oscillations in epilepsy and surgical outcome. A meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:574. 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. van 't Klooster MA, van Klink NEC, Zweiphenning WJEM, et al. : Tailoring epilepsy surgery with fast ripples in the intraoperative electrocorticogram. Ann Neurol. 2017;81(5):664–76. 10.1002/ana.24928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 67. Roehri N, Pizzo F, Lagarde S, et al. : High-frequency oscillations are not better biomarkers of epileptogenic tissues than spikes. Ann Neurol. 2018;83(1):84–97. 10.1002/ana.25124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 68. Conner CR, Ellmore TM, DiSano MA, et al. : Anatomic and electro-physiologic connectivity of the language system: a combined DTI-CCEP study. Comput Biol Med. 2011;41(12):1100–9. 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2011.07.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Crowther LJ, Brunner P, Kapeller C, et al. : A quantitative method for evaluating cortical responses to electrical stimulation. J Neurosci Methods. 2019;311:67–75. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.09.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 70. Mouthaan BE, van ‘t Klooster MA, Keizer D, et al. : Single Pulse Electrical Stimulation to identify epileptogenic cortex: Clinical information obtained from early evoked responses. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(2):1088–98. 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.07.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Boulogne S, Ryvlin P, Rheims S: Single and paired-pulse electrical stimulation during invasive EEG recordings. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2016;172(3):174–81. 10.1016/j.neurol.2016.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Matsumoto R, Kunieda T, Nair D: Single pulse electrical stimulation to probe functional and pathological connectivity in epilepsy. Seizure. 2017;44:27–36. 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 73. Duncan JS, Winston GP, Koepp MJ, et al. : Brain imaging in the assessment for epilepsy surgery. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15(4):420–33. 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00383-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Sidhu MK, Duncan JS, Sander JW: Neuroimaging in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(4):371–8. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Rüber T, David B, Elger CE: MRI in epilepsy: clinical standard and evolution. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(2):223–31. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Téllez-Zenteno JF, Hernández Ronquillo L, Moien-Afshari F, et al. : Surgical outcomes in lesional and non-lesional epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epilepsy Res. 2010;89(2–3):310–8. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2010.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. de Tisi J, Bell GS, Peacock JL, et al. : The long-term outcome of adult epilepsy surgery, patterns of seizure remission, and relapse: a cohort study. Lancet. 2011;378(9800):1388–95. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60890-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 78. Bien CG, Szinay M, Wagner J, et al. : Characteristics and surgical outcomes of patients with refractory magnetic resonance imaging-negative epilepsies. Arch Neurol. 2009;66(12):1491–9. 10.1001/archneurol.2009.283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Duncan JS: Imaging in the surgical treatment of epilepsy. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010;6(10):537–50. 10.1038/nrneurol.2010.131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Wellmer J, Quesada CM, Rothe L, et al. : Proposal for a magnetic resonance imaging protocol for the detection of epileptogenic lesions at early outpatient stages. Epilepsia. 2013;54(11):1977–87. 10.1111/epi.12375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Stefanits H, Springer E, Pataraia E, et al. : Seven-Tesla MRI of Hippocampal Sclerosis: An In Vivo Feasibility Study With Histological Correlations. Invest Radiol. 2017;52(11):666–71. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. De Ciantis A, Barba C, Tassi L, et al. : 7T MRI in focal epilepsy with unrevealing conventional field strength imaging. Epilepsia. 2016;57(3):445–54. 10.1111/epi.13313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Wychowski T, Hussain A, Tivarus ME, et al. : Qualitative analysis of double inversion recovery MRI in drug-resistant epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2016;127:195–9. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2016.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Boscolo Galazzo I, Mattoli MV, Pizzini FB, et al. : Cerebral metabolism and perfusion in MR-negative individuals with refractory focal epilepsy assessed by simultaneous acquisition of 18F-FDG PET and arterial spin labeling. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;11:648–57. 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.04.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Winston GP, Micallef C, Symms MR, et al. : Advanced diffusion imaging sequences could aid assessing patients with focal cortical dysplasia and epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2014;108(2):336–9. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2013.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Huppertz HJ, Kurthen M, Kassubek J: Voxel-based 3D MRI analysis for the detection of epileptogenic lesions at single subject level. Epilepsia. 2009;50(1):155–6. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01734.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Focke NK, Bonelli SB, Yogarajah M, et al. : Automated normalized FLAIR imaging in MRI-negative patients with refractory focal epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2009;50(6):1484–90. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2009.02022.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Wagner J, Weber B, Urbach H, et al. : Morphometric MRI analysis improves detection of focal cortical dysplasia type II. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 10):2844–54. 10.1093/brain/awr204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Hong SJ, Kim H, Schrader D, et al. : Automated detection of cortical dysplasia type II in MRI-negative epilepsy. Neurology. 2014;83(1):48–55. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Martin P, Bender B, Focke NK: Post-processing of structural MRI for individualized diagnostics. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2015;5(2):188–203. 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.01.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Lai C, Guo S, Cheng L, et al. : A Comparative Study of Feature Selection Methods for the Discriminative Analysis of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. Front Neurol. 2017;8:633. 10.3389/fneur.2017.00633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Martin P, Winston GP, Bartlett P, et al. : Voxel-based magnetic resonance image postprocessing in epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2017;58(9):1653–64. 10.1111/epi.13851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 93. Wong-Kisiel LC, Tovar Quiroga DF, Kenney-Jung DL, et al. : Morphometric analysis on T1-weighted MRI complements visual MRI review in focal cortical dysplasia. Epilepsy Res. 2018;140:184–91. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.01.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 94. Kotikalapudi R, Martin P, Marquetand J, et al. : Systematic Assessment of Multispectral Voxel-Based Morphometry in Previously MRI-Negative Focal Epilepsy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(11):2014–21. 10.3174/ajnr.A5809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 95. Helmstaedter C, Witt JA: Clinical neuropsychology in epilepsy: theoretical and practical issues. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;107:437–459. 10.1016/B978-0-444-52898-8.00036-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Baxendale S, Thompson P: Beyond localization: the role of traditional neuropsychological tests in an age of imaging. Epilepsia. 2010;51(11):2225–30. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02710.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Hermann B, Loring DW, Wilson S: Paradigm Shifts in the Neuropsychology of Epilepsy. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2017;23(9–10):791–805. 10.1017/S1355617717000650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Witt JA, Hoppe C, Helmstaedter C: Neuropsychologist's (re-)view: Resective versus ablative amygdalohippocampectomies. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:161–6. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.08.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Helmstaedter C, Elger CE, Witt JA: The effect of quantitative and qualitative antiepileptic drug changes on cognitive recovery after epilepsy surgery. Seizure. 2016;36:63–9. 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Helmstaedter C, Witt JA: How neuropsychology can improve the care of individual patients with epilepsy. Looking back and into the future. Seizure. 2017;44:113–20. 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.09.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Andersson-Roswall L, Engman E, Samuelsson H, et al. : Cognitive outcome 10 years after temporal lobe epilepsy surgery: a prospective controlled study. Neurology. 2010;74(24):1977–85. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181e39684 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Andersson-Roswall L, Malmgren K, Engman E, et al. : Verbal memory decline is less frequent at 10 years than at 2 years after temporal lobe surgery for epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24(4):462–7. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103. Witt JA, Helmstaedter C: Cognition in epilepsy: current clinical issues of interest. Curr Opin Neurol. 2017;30(2):174–9. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000430 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Helmstaedter C: Cognitive outcomes of different surgical approaches in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epileptic Disord. 2013;15(3):221–39. 10.1684/epd.2013.0587 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Baxendale S, Wilson SJ, Baker GA, et al. : Indications and expectations for neuropsychological assessment in epilepsy surgery in children and adults. Epileptic Disord. 2019;21(3):221–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. Baxendale S, Wilson SJ, Baker GA, et al. : Indications and expectations for neuropsychological assessment in epilepsy surgery in children and adults: Executive summary of the report of the ILAE Neuropsychology Task Force Diagnostic Methods Commission: 2017-2021. Epilepsia. 2019;60(9):1794–6. 10.1111/epi.16309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Drane DL: MRI-Guided stereotactic laser ablation for epilepsy surgery: Promising preliminary results for cognitive outcome. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:170–5. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.09.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 108. Drane DL, Loring DW, Voets NL, et al. : Better object recognition and naming outcome with MRI-guided stereotactic laser amygdalohippocampotomy for temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2015;56(1):101–13. 10.1111/epi.12860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. Drane DL, Pedersen NP: Knowledge of language function and underlying neural networks gained from focal seizures and epilepsy surgery. Brain Lang. 2019;189:20–33. 10.1016/j.bandl.2018.12.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Drane DL, Ojemann JG, Phatak V, et al. : Famous face identification in temporal lobe epilepsy: support for a multimodal integration model of semantic memory. Cortex. 2013;49(6):1648–67. 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111. von Oertzen TJ: PET and ictal SPECT can be helpful for localizing epileptic foci. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(2):184–91. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000527 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Engel J, Jr, Kuhl DE, Phelps ME, et al. : Comparative localization of epileptic foci in partial epilepsy by PCT and EEG. Ann Neurol. 1982;12(6):529–37. 10.1002/ana.410120605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Chassoux F, Artiges E, Semah F, et al. : Determinants of brain metabolism changes in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2016;57(6):907–19. 10.1111/epi.13377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. Engel J, Jr, Thompson PM: Going beyond hippocampocentricity in the concept of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2012;53(1):220–3. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03366.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. Richardson MP: Large scale brain models of epilepsy: Dynamics meets connectomics. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 2012;83(12):1238–48. 10.1136/jnnp-2011-301944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 116. Chassoux F, Artiges E, Semah F, et al. : 18F-FDG-PET patterns of surgical success and failure in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology. 2017;88(11):1045–53. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 117. Farooque P, Hirsch L, Levy S, et al. : Surgical outcome in adolescents with mesial temporal sclerosis: Is it different? Epilepsy Behav. 2017;69:24–7. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.10.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118. Immonen A, Jutila L, Muraja-Murro A, et al. : Long-term epilepsy surgery outcomes in patients with MRI-negative temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2010;51(11):2260–9. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02720.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119. Gok B, Jallo G, Hayeri R, et al. : The evaluation of FDG-PET imaging for epileptogenic focus localization in patients with MRI positive and MRI negative temporal lobe epilepsy. Neuroradiology. 2013;55(5):541–50. 10.1007/s00234-012-1121-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120. LoPinto-Khoury C, Sperling MR, Skidmore C, et al. : Surgical outcome in PET-positive, MRI-negative patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2012;53(2):342–8. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03359.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121. Muhlhofer W, Tan YL, Mueller SG, et al. : MRI-negative temporal lobe epilepsy-What do we know? Epilepsia. 2017;58(5):727–42. 10.1111/epi.13699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 122. Chassoux F, Rodrigo S, Semah F, et al. : FDG-PET improves surgical outcome in negative MRI Taylor-type focal cortical dysplasias. Neurology. 2010;75(24):2168–75. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820203a9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 123. Desarnaud S, Mellerio C, Semah F, et al. : 18F-FDG PET in drug-resistant epilepsy due to focal cortical dysplasia type 2: additional value of electroclinical data and coregistration with MRI.. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(8):1449–60. 10.1007/s00259-018-3994-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 124. Mendes Coelho VC, Morita ME, Amorim BJ, et al. : Automated Online Quantification Method for 18F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography/CT Improves Detection of the Epileptogenic Zone in Patients with Pharmacoresistant Epilepsy. Front Neurol. 2017;8:453. 10.3389/fneur.2017.00453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 125. Tan YL, Kim H, Lee S, et al. : Quantitative surface analysis of combined MRI and PET enhances detection of focal cortical dysplasias. Neuroimage. 2018;166:10–8. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 126. O'Brien TJ, So EL, Mullan BP, et al. : Subtraction ictal SPECT co-registered to MRI improves clinical usefulness of SPECT in localizing the surgical seizure focus. Neurology. 1998;50(2):445–54. 10.1212/wnl.50.2.445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127. Long Z, Hanson DP, Mullan BP, et al. : Analysis of Brain SPECT Images Coregistered with MRI in Patients with Epilepsy: Comparison of Three Methods. J Neuroimaging. 2018;28(3):307–12. 10.1111/jon.12496 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 128. Kazemi NJ, Worrell GA, Stead SM, et al. : Ictal SPECT statistical parametric mapping in temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. Neurology. 2010;74(1):70–6. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181c7da20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129. Szaflarski JP, Gloss D, Binder JR, et al. : Practice guideline summary: Use of fMRI in the presurgical evaluation of patients with epilepsy: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2017;88(4):395–402. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 130. Sabsevitz DS, Swanson SJ, Hammeke TA, et al. : Use of preoperative functional neuroimaging to predict language deficits from epilepsy surgery. Neurology. 2003;60(11):1788–92. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000068022.05644.01 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131. Bonelli SB, Thompson PJ, Yogarajah M, et al. : Imaging language networks before and after anterior temporal lobe resection: results of a longitudinal fMRI study. Epilepsia. 2012;53(4):639–50. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03433.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132. Rosazza C, Ghielmetti F, Minati L, et al. : Preoperative language lateralization in temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) predicts peri-ictal, pre- and post-operative language performance: An fMRI study. Neuroimage Clin. 2013;3:73–83. 10.1016/j.nicl.2013.07.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133. Babajani-Feremi A, Holder CM, Narayana S, et al. : Predicting postoperative language outcome using presurgical fMRI, MEG, TMS, and high gamma ECoG. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018;129(3):560–71. 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.12.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 134. Mathern GW, Beninsig L, Nehlig A: From the editors: Epilepsia's survey on the necessity of the Wada test and intracranial electrodes for cortical mapping. Epilepsia. 2014;55(12):1887–9. 10.1111/epi.12815 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135. Labudda K, Mertens M, Kalbhenn T, et al. : Partial resection of presurgical fMRI activation is associated with a postsurgical loss of language function after frontal lobe epilepsy surgery. Neurocase. 2017;23(3–4):239–48. 10.1080/13554794.2017.1383445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 136. Sidhu MK, Stretton J, Winston GP, et al. : A functional magnetic resonance imaging study mapping the episodic memory encoding network in temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain. 2013;136(Pt 6):1868–88. 10.1093/brain/awt099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137. Sidhu MK, Stretton J, Winston GP, et al. : Memory network plasticity after temporal lobe resection: a longitudinal functional imaging study. Brain. 2016;139(Pt 2):415–30. 10.1093/brain/awv365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138. Bonelli SB, Powell RH, Yogarajah M, et al. : Imaging memory in temporal lobe epilepsy: predicting the effects of temporal lobe resection. Brain. 2010;133(Pt 4):1186–99. 10.1093/brain/awq006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139. Sidhu MK, Stretton J, Winston GP, et al. : Memory fMRI predicts verbal memory decline after anterior temporal lobe resection. Neurology. 2015;84(15):1512–9. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140. Cabrera OS, Lehéricy S, Masson V, et al. : Adapting a memory fMRI research protocol in clinical routine: Feasibility and results. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;81:49–54. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 141. Kahane P, Spencer SS: Invasive evaluation. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;108:867–879. 10.1016/B978-0-444-52899-5.00033-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142. Bouthillier A, Nguyen DK: Epilepsy Surgeries Requiring an Operculoinsular Cortectomy: Operative Technique and Results. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(4):602–612. 10.1093/neuros/nyx080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 143. Feng ES, Sui CB, Wang TX, et al. : Stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2016;134(6):442–51. 10.1111/ane.12562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144. McGonigal A, Sahgal A, De Salles A, et al. : Radiosurgery for epilepsy: Systematic review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) practice guideline. Epilepsy Res. 2017;137:123–31. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 145. Bezchlibnyk YB, Willie JT, Gross RE: A neurosurgeon`s view: Laser interstitial thermal therapy of mesial temporal lobe structures. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:135–9. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146. Kang JY, Sperling MR: Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Laser Interstitial Thermal Therapy for Treatment of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14(1):176–81. 10.1007/s13311-016-0498-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147. Kang JY, Sperling MR: Epileptologist's view: Laser interstitial thermal ablation for treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:149–52. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148. Donos C, Breier J, Friedman E, et al. : Laser ablation for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: Surgical and cognitive outcomes with and without mesial temporal sclerosis. Epilepsia. 2018;59(7):1421–32. 10.1111/epi.14443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149. Le S, Ho AL, Fisher RS, et al. : Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT): Seizure outcomes for refractory mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;89:37–41. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2018.09.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150. Kang JY, Wu C, Tracy J, et al. : Laser interstitial thermal therapy for medically intractable mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2016;57(2):325–34. 10.1111/epi.13284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151. Curry DJ, Raskin J, Ali I, et al. : MR-guided laser ablation for the treatment of hypothalamic hamartomas. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:131–4. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 152. Catenoix H, Bourdillon P, Guénot M, et al. : The combination of stereo-EEG and radiofrequency ablation. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:117–20. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2018.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153. Cossu M, Fuschillo D, Cardinale F, et al. : Stereo-EEG-guided radio-frequency thermocoagulations of epileptogenic grey-matter nodular heterotopy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85:611–7. 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154. Cossu M, Fuschillo D, Casaceli G, et al. : Stereoelectroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation in the epileptogenic zone: A retrospective study on 89 cases. J Neurosurg. 2015;123(6):1358–67. 10.3171/2014.12.JNS141968 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155. Cossu M, Cardinale F, Casaceli G, et al. : Stereo-EEG-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulations. Epilepsia. 2017;58:66–72. 10.1111/epi.13687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156. Cossu M, Mirandola L, Tassi L: RF-ablation in periventricular heterotopia-related epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2018;142:121–5. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157. Dimova P, de Palma L, Job-Chapron AS, et al. : Radiofrequency thermocoagulation of the seizure-onset zone during stereoelectroencephalography. Epilepsia. 2017;58(3):381–92. 10.1111/epi.13663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158. Bourdillon P, Isnard J, Catenoix H, et al. : Stereo electroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (SEEG-guided RF-TC) in drug-resistant focal epilepsy: Results from a 10-year experience. Epilepsia. 2017;58(1):85–93. 10.1111/epi.13616 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159. Bourdillon P, Cucherat M, Isnard J, et al. : Stereo-electroencephalography-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation in patients with focal epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epilepsia. 2018;59(12):2296–304. 10.1111/epi.14584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation
  • 160. Bourdillon P, Devaux B, Job-Chapron AS, et al. : SEEG-guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation. Neurophysiol Clin. 2018;48(1):59–64. 10.1016/j.neucli.2017.11.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161. Boon P, De Cock E, Mertens A, et al. : Neurostimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review of clinical evidence for efficacy, safety, contraindications and predictors for response. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(2):198–210. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; F1000 Recommendation

Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

RESOURCES