ReviewNeurosurgical review2021
Resective epilepsy surgery: assessment of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epileptogenesis and Epilepsy Treatment: Advances in Mechanistic Understanding, Therapeutic Approaches, and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Cenobamate for Difficult-to-Treat Epilepsy - Selected Case Vignettes.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Overview of the Current Status and Advancements in Various Treatment Strategies against Epilepsy.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Review
- The anterior sylvian point as a reliable landmark for the anterior temporal lobectomy in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy: technical note, case series, and cadaveric dissection.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Fighting Epilepsy with Nanomedicines-Is This the Right Weapon?Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Early epilepsy surgery for non drug-resistant patients.Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2022Article
- The surgical treatment of epilepsy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epilepsy is the most common form of chronic neurologic disease. Here, we review the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy of resective epilepsy surgery in select patients suffering from medically intractable epilepsy (defined as persistent epilepsy despite two or more antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]). Three RCTs (two adult RCTs and one pediatric RCT) consistently supported the efficacy of resective surgery as treatment for epilepsy with semiology localized to the mesial temporal lobe. In these studies, 58-100% of the patients who underwent resective surgery achieved seizure freedom, in comparison to 0-13% of medically treated patients. In another RCT, the likelihood of seizure freedom after resective surgery was independent of the surgical approach (transSylvian [64%] versus subtemporal [62%]). Two other RCTs demonstrated that hippocampal resection is essential to optimize seizure control. But, no significant gain in seizure control was achieved beyond removing 2.5 cm of the hippocampus. Across RCTs, minor complications (deficit lasting < 3 months) and major complications (deficit > 3 months) ranged 2-5% and 5-11% respectively. However, nonincapacitating superior subquadrantic visual-field defects (not typically considered a minor or major complication) were noted in up to 55% of the surgical cohort. The available RCTs provide compelling support for resective surgery as a treatment for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and offer insights toward optimal surgical strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.