ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Stereoelectroencephalography for drug resistant epilepsy: precision and complications in stepwise improvement of frameless implantation.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is the standard for invasive investigations in epilepsy surgery. Our aim was to investigate if similar precision and low complication rate can be achieved with optimized frameless navigation as with frame-based or dedicated stereotactic SEEG robot.
methodsWe compared five different implantation techniques assessing entry, target errors and complications in 53 SEEGs from 50 patients: Group 1 - surface registration and Vertek probe, Group 2 - rigid registration with conventional CT and Vertek probe, Group 3 - rigid registration and Vertek probe, Group 4 - rigid registration and Autoguide, Group 5 - rigid, sterile registration and Autoguide. Analysis was done using random effects linear modelling to calculate improvement in percent using Group 1 as a reference, p < 0.001 was considered significant.
resultsMean patient age at implantation was 23 years (range 4-46 years) and mean number of implanted electrodes per patient were 11 (range 3-15). Accuracy data was available for 36 SEEG implantations (419 electrodes). The median entry/target errors were (mm): Group 1:4.6/4.3; Group 2:1.8/2.3; Group 3:0.9/1.5; Group 4:1.1/1.2; Group 5:0/0.7. Improvement of accuracy for entry error was 38% for Group 2 (p = 0.004), 47% for Group 3 (p < 0.001), 50% for Group 4 (p < 0.001), and 72% for Group 5 (p < 0.001). Improvement of accuracy for target error was 17% for Group 2 (p = 0.17), 22% for Group 3 (p < 0.001), 35% for Group 4 (p < 0.001), and 51% for Group 5 (p < 0.001). Complications (hemorrhage, edema, headache) occurred in 7/53 SEEGs, none of these led to permanent deficit. 40/53 investigations resulted in an epilepsy surgery procedure.
conclusionHigh precision and low complication rate in SEEG implantation can be achieved with frameless navigation using rigid, sterile registration.
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.