ArticleEpilepsia open2025
Intracranial stimulation for pediatric refractory epilepsy: A single institutional experience using evolving therapies.
Article in Epilepsia open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNeuromodulation for pediatric refractory epilepsy (PRE) is preferred when the seizure onset zone is not amenable to surgical resection, due to multifocal onset or involvement of eloquent cortex. Given its rapidly evolving landscape, we describe our institutional experience with neurostimulation therapies including deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the anterior nucleus (DBS-ANT), the centromedian nucleus (DBS-CM), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS) to treat PRE.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted to identify pediatric patients (≤18 years of age) who presented to our institution with PRE. Patients were included who had at least 1 year of follow-up after neurostimulation was started. Patients with ≥50% seizure frequency reduction at last follow-up compared to baseline were classified as responders.
resultsA total of 35 patients (21 females) were included in the series. Nine patients underwent DBS-ANT, 9 underwent DBS-CM (+ ANT in 7 patients), 5 underwent RNS, and 12 underwent CSS. The median age at seizure onset and surgery was 8 and 16 years, respectively. Structural lesions were the most common etiology of epilepsy (54%). Eighteen patients had prior interventions and 13 received invasive EEG. Post-operative complications following neurostimulation implantation were noted in three patients (9%). However, no permanent deficits were noted. Median follow-up time was 46 months (range 13-162 months). Twenty-three patients (59%) were responders (3/9 DBS-ANT; 7/9 DBS-CM; 4/5 RNS; 9/12 CSS). Further, median seizure reduction was 25% (DBS-ANT), 89% (DBS-CM), 87% (RNS), and 88% (CSS) across the cohort. Six patients (17%) had improved subjective neurocognitive outcomes while the other 29 had stable neurocognitive outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: DBS, RNS, and CSS are safe and effective options for PRE. An understanding of treatment approaches can optimize results by tailoring therapy to individual patients. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study investigates the use of various neurostimulation therapies for treating pediatric refractory epilepsy (PRE) including deep brain stimulation (DBS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), and chronic subthreshold stimulation (CSS). Overall, neuromodulation was found to be effective in reducing seizures in most patients, with 59% of patients showing at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Additionally, the treatments were generally safe, with few complications and no instances of permanent deficits.
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.