Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34786887›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia open2022

Intracranial monitoring contributes to seizure freedom for temporal lobectomy patients with nonconcordant preoperative data.

Elisaveta Sokolov, Nathaniel D Sisterson, Helweh Hussein, Cheryl Plummer, Danielle Corson, Arun R Antony, Joseph M Mettenburg, Gena R Ghearing, Jullie W Pan, Alexandra Urban and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elisaveta SokolovDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1509-9416
Nathaniel D SistersonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Helweh HusseinDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Cheryl PlummerUniversity of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Danielle CorsonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Arun R AntonyDepartment of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Joseph M MettenburgDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Gena R GhearingDepartment of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4477-2868
Jullie W PanUniversity of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Alexandra UrbanUniversity of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Anto BagićUniversity of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
R Mark RichardsonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2620-7387
Vasileios KokkinosDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4309-5455
University of Pittsburgh · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe question of whether a patient with presumed temporal lobe seizures should proceed directly to temporal lobectomy surgery versus undergo intracranial monitoring arises commonly. We evaluate the effect of intracranial monitoring on seizure outcome in a retrospective cohort of consecutive subjects who specifically underwent an anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) for refractory temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE).

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 85 patients with focal refractory TLE who underwent ATL following: (a) intracranial monitoring via craniotomy and subdural/depth electrodes (SDE/DE), (b) intracranial monitoring via stereotactic electroencephalography (sEEG), or (c) no intracranial monitoring (direct ATL-dATL). For each subject, the presurgical primary hypothesis for epileptogenic zone localization was characterized as unilateral TLE, unilateral TLE plus (TLE+), or TLE with bilateral/poor lateralization.

resultsAt one-year and most recent follow-up, Engel Class I and combined I/II outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups. Outcomes were better in the dATL group compared to the intracranial monitoring groups for lesional cases but were similar in nonlesional cases. Those requiring intracranial monitoring for a hypothesis of TLE+had similar outcomes with either intracranial monitoring approach. sEEG was the only approach used in patients with bilateral or poorly lateralized TLE, resulting in 77.8% of patients seizure-free at last follow-up. Importantly, for 85% of patients undergoing SEEG, recommendation for ATL resulted from modifying the primary hypothesis based on iEEG data. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study highlights the value of intracranial monitoring in equalizing seizure outcomes in difficult-to-treat TLE patients undergoing ATL.

Indexed as

CraniotomySeizuresFreedomHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcomeanterior temporal lobectomyepilepsy surgerystereotactic electroencephalographysubdural electrodestemporal lobe epilepsy

Identifiers

PMID34786887
PMCPMC8886064
OpenAlexW3147553419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.