|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 53
| Issue : 1 | Page : 41-47 |
|
Long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery
Amal T Khafagi1, Nermin A Hamdy1, Enas M Hassan1, Mohamed A Yehia1, Mohammad M Ismail2, Eiju Watanabe3
1 Department of Neurology, Minia University, Minia, Egypt
2 Department of Neurology, Minia University, Minia, Egypt; Department of Neurosurgery, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
3 Department of Neurosurgery, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
| Date of Submission | 04-Jul-2015 |
| Date of Acceptance | 01-Oct-2015 |
| Date of Web Publication | 15-Feb-2016 |
Correspondence Address:
Nermin A Hamdy
MD, Department of Neurology, Minia University, Minia, 61111, Egypt
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1110-1083.176370
Background
Diagnosis of the epileptogenic zone is the main aim of the presurgical evaluation in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Different diagnostic tools are being used to identify it.
Objective
This study aimed at studying the value of long-term scalp video-electroencephalography (video-EEG) monitoring to diagnose laterality and locality of the epileptic focus by comparing its results with other noninvasive methods, including interictal magnetoencephalography (MEG), interictal iodine-123 iomazenil single-photon emission computed tomography ( 123 I-IMZ SPECT), and interictal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) PET.
Patients and methods
A total of 24 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy were included in this study; 17 had mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, whereas the remaining seven had neocortical epilepsy. All patients were admitted to Jichi University Hospital in Japan for the presurgical evaluation and surgical intervention. All patients were subjected to clinical evaluation, brain MRI, and long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring; a total of 23 patients had interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT, 19 had interictal MEG recording, and 10 had interictal 18 F-FDG PET. The laterality and locality of the epileptogenic area predicted by these methods were defined in relation to the resected area.
Results
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was significantly superior to interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT and interictal 18 F-FDG PET in diagnosing laterality and locality of the epileptogenic zone and superior to interictal MEG in patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and patients with epileptogenic MRI findings.
Conclusion
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring is the cornerstone in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery. Keywords: Epilepsy surgery, long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring, presurgical evaluation
How to cite this article:
Khafagi AT, Hamdy NA, Hassan EM, Yehia MA, Ismail MM, Watanabe E. Long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 2016;53:41-7 |
How to cite this URL:
Khafagi AT, Hamdy NA, Hassan EM, Yehia MA, Ismail MM, Watanabe E. Long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg [serial online] 2016 [cited 2023 Dec 7];53:41-7. Available from: http://www.ejnpn.eg.net/text.asp?2016/53/1/41/176370 |
| Introduction | |  |
Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders; ∼60% of all patients with epilepsy suffer from focal epilepsy syndromes [1]. It has been estimated that about 5-10% of all incidence cases of epilepsy eventually become drug resistant [2]. Cumulatively, these patients may account for about 40% of epilepsy prevalence [3],[4]. About 50% of the patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are potential candidates for epilepsy surgical treatment [5]. The average seizure-free rate after epilepsy surgery is nearly 60% in large epilepsy centers [6]. The main aim of the presurgical evaluation in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy is the diagnosis of the epileptogenic zone [7]. Different diagnostic tools are being used by epileptologists to identify epileptogenic zone, including the following: long-term scalp video-electroencephalography (video-EEG) monitoring, MRI, interictal magnetoencephalography (MEG), interictal iodine-123 iomazenil single-photon emission computed tomography ( 123 I-IMZ SPECT), and interictal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) PET [8].
| Aim | | |
The aim of the present study was to examine the role of long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring in presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery, and how far it is valuable in diagnosing laterality and locality of the epileptic focus by comparing its results with other noninvasive methods.
| Patients and methods | | |
A total of 24 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy were included in the present study. Seventeen patients were diagnosed to have mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE), whereas seven patients had neocortical epilepsy (NE). All patients were admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery in Jichi Medical University Hospital for the presurgical evaluation and surgical intervention.
Data were collected by Dr M. M. Ismael for his MD thesis, under the supervision of the rest of authors.
We included adult patients of both sexes with surgically remediable drug-resistant epilepsy, which was defined as the failure of adequate trials of two tolerated and appropriately chosen and used anti epileptic drug (AED) schedules to achieve sustained seizure freedom. Seizure freedom was defined as the freedom from all types of seizures for 12 months or three times the preintervention interseizure interval, whichever was longer [9]. We excluded children and inoperable patients because of any cause, including patients with multiple independent epileptic foci.
Patients were subjected to history-taking, clinical examination, and phase I evaluation as follows; all patients were subjected to structural brain MRI and long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring by using the monitoring system (Neurofax EEG-1100; Nihon Kohden Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) after the withdrawal of AED medication. A total of 23 patients were subjected to interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT, which was performed using the central benzodiazepine antagonist 123 I-iomazenil. Data acquisition was performed with a Picker PRISM 3000XP three detector rotating gamma camera (Picker International Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, USA). Nineteen patients were subjected to interictal MEG recording for 30 min using 204 channel whole-head MEG system (Neuromag Ltd, Helsinki, Finland). Ten patients were subjected to interictal 18 F-FDG PET with Biograph 16 HI-REZ PET/CT Scanner (Siemens, Hoffman Estates, Illinois, USA).
The laterality and locality of the epileptogenic area, predicted by phase I evaluation methods, were defined in relation to the laterality and locality of the resected area after a consensus was reached. For each of these methods the results were coded as follows. Regarding laterality, if the laterality of the predicted area was the same as the laterality of the resected area, the method result was coded as lateralizing (true positive+true negative). If the laterality of the predicted area was opposite to the laterality of the resected area, the method result was coded as false lateralizing (false positive+false negative). If the method predicted an epileptogenic area in both hemispheres, the method result was coded as none lateralizing (true positive+false negative). If the method did not predict any epileptogenic area, the method result was coded as negatively lateralizing (true negative+false positive).
Regarding locality, if the location of the predicted area was the same as the location of the resected area, the method result was coded as perfectly overlapping (true positive+true negative). If the location of the predicted area was more extensive (but not for more than two lobes within the same hemisphere), the method result was coded as partially overlapping (true positive+true negative). If the location of the predicted area was different from the location of the resected area, the method result was coded as none overlapping (false positive+false negative). If the location of the predicted area was much more extensive than was the location of the resected area, the method result was coded as non localizing (true positive + false positive). If the method did not predict any epileptogenic area, the method result was coded as negatively localizing (true negative+false negative).
Sensitivity of any of these methods was calculated as true positive/true positive + false negative, whereas specificity was calculated as true negative/true negative+false positive.
Ten patients were subjected to phase II evaluation with invasive intracranial EEG recording.
Statistical analysis
Data entry and analysis were carried out with an IBM compatible computer using the software SPSS (version 11; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA), and Microstats program (Webbsoft Technologies, Scoresby, Australia). Quantitative data were presented as mean and SD, whereas qualitative data were presented as frequency distribution. The Z-test (test of proportion), independent sample t-test and the χ2 -tests were also used. A P value of less than 0.05 was used as a cut-off point for all significant tests. A P value of less than 0.5 was considered significant.
| Results | | |
A total of 24 patients were included in this study [10 men (41.7%) and 14 women (58.3%)]: 17 (70.8%) patients with MTLE and seven (29.2%) patients with NE. Their ages ranged from 21 to 54 years (mean: 34.2 ± 7.9 years). Complex partial seizures were shown to be the most common drug-resistant seizure type in 21 (87.5%) patients −17 (100%) patients with MTLE and four (57.1%) patients with NE - and this difference was statistically highly significant (P = 0.001). Neurological examination showed abnormality in only two patients (both were patients with NE); one patient showed motor dysphasia and Gerstmann's syndrome, whereas the other was mentally retarded with an IQ of 40.
Structural brain MRI showed epileptogenic lesions in 14 (58.3%) patients: 11 (64.7%) patients with MTLE and three (42.9%) patients with NE. In patients with MTLE, hippocampal atrophy has been shown as the most common lesion. Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was significantly superior to interictal MEG in diagnosing laterality and locality of the epileptogenic zone in the total number of patients. In contrast, interictal MEG was superior to long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring in diagnosing locality of the epileptogenic zone perfectly in the total number of patients and with a statistically significant difference in patients with NE [Table 1]. | Table 1: Comparison between long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring and interictal magnetoencephalography results
Click here to view |
Interictal MEG was superior to long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring in patients with normal MRI. Whereas long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was superior to interictal MEG in patients with epileptogenic MRI findings [Table 2]. | Table 2: Comparison between long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring and interictal magnetoencephalography results both in patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging and epileptogenic magnetic resonance imaging findings
Click here to view |
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was superior to interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT regarding the diagnosis of laterality and locality in the total number of patients and in MTLE [Table 3], both in patients with normal and epileptogenic MRI findings [Table 4]. | Table 3: Comparison between long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring and interictal iodine-123 iomazenil single-photon emission computed tomography results
Click here to view |
 | Table 4: Comparison between long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring and interictal iodine-123 iomazenil single-photon emission computed tomography results both in patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging and epileptogenic magnetic resonance imaging findings
Click here to view |
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was superior to interictal 18 F-FDG PET with a statistically significant difference regarding the diagnosis of laterality and locality in all patients and in patients with MTLE and laterality in NE patients [Table 5]. Moreover, it was superior in the diagnosis of laterality in patients with normal MRI, both in the total number of patients and in patients with NE, and in patients with epileptogenic MRI findings, both in the total number of patients and in patients with MTLE [Table 6]. | Table 5: Comparison between long-term scalp videoelectroencephalography monitoring and interictal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography results
Click here to view |
 | Table 6: Comparison between long-term scalp video-electroencephalography monitoring and interictal fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography results both in patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging and epileptogenic magnetic resonance imaging findings
Click here to view |
Sensitivity and specificity of interictal MEG, interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT, and interictal 18 F-FDG PET to measure laterality and locality of epileptogenic focus compared with long-term video-EEG are shown in [Table 7]. | Table 7: Sensitivity and specificity of interictal magnetoencephalography, interictal iodine-123 iomazenil single-photon emission computed tomography and interictal fluorine-18 fl uorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to measure laterality and locality of epileptogenic focus compared with long-term video-electroencephalography
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring allowed recording of ictal and interictal changes. In contrast, other techniques used and compared with long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring record only interictal brain activity. That was not a bias towards long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring, as MEG is performed in the outpatient setting where AEDs cannot be tapered or discontinued safely, and recording time is limited, so the chance of capturing a seizure during a study is very small [10]. The use of 123 I-IMZ as a radiotracer for interictal SPECT has been shown to delineate the epileptic focus more precisely than does ictal SPECT, with a higher sensitivity [11]. Finally, 18 F-FDG PET measures changes in cerebral glucose metabolism and has higher spatial resolution, but its temporal resolution is unfavorable for ictal studies [8].
The number of patients included in this study was relatively small, but a similar number of patients has been included in other studies used to evaluate different phase I evaluation methods. A study by Debets et al. [12] included 23 patients to determine the contribution of 18 F-FDG PET, 11 C-flumazenil PET, and 123 I-IMZ SPECT in the presurgical evaluation of patients with medically intractable complex partial seizures. In their study, Tanaka et al. [11] included 10 patients to evaluate the role of interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT in the diagnosis of the epileptogenic zone and compared its results with those of perfusion ictal SPECT and interictal 18 F-FDG PET.
The number of patients subjected to different phase I evaluation methods was not identical in our study, as not all patients were subjected to all the phase evaluation methods in their presurgical evaluation program. Other studies comparing between different phase I evaluation methods also included different number of patients in subgroups [11].
In the present study, there were 17 (70.8%) patients with MTLE and seven (29.2%) patients with NE. This was in agreement with the majority of surgical series in which the number of patients with MTLE represented between 50 and 73% of patients referred and assessed in the epilepsy surgical centers [13].
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was significantly superior to interictal MEG in diagnosing laterality and locality of the epileptogenic zone with higher sensitivity and specificity, especially in patients with MTLE and patients with epileptogenic MRI findings. This may be due to the advantage of long-term video-EEG monitoring, which facilitates extensive temporal sampling across all periods of the sleep/wake cycle and recording of the ictal activity. In contrast, interictal MEG was superior to long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring in diagnosing locality of the epileptogenic zone perfectly with a statistically significant difference in patients with NE and patients with normal MRI. This was in agreement with previous studies [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23], which concluded that interictal MEG can localize epileptic activity accurately even to lobar subcompartments. The superiority of interictal MEG in patients with NE was in agreement with other studies [24],[25],[26], which concluded that MEG sensitivity depends mainly on the source depth with a higher sensitivity for superficial sources; the amplitude of the magnetic field depends strongly on the depth of the electrical brain activity. Its superiority in patients with normal MRI was in agreement with a study by Pataraia et al. [27],[28] who concluded that MEG is especially useful for the study of patients with nonlesional epilepsy and of patients with large lesions, where it provides unique information on the epileptogenic zone. These results showed that long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring and interictal MEG complement each other in the diagnosis of the epileptogenic zone. This was in agreement with many previous studies [16],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33], which reported the complementary functions of long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring and interictal MEG.
In our study, long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring was superior to both interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT and interictal 18 F-FDG PET in diagnosing laterality and locality of the epileptogenic zone with significantly higher sensitivities and specificities not only in patients with epileptogenic MRI findings but also in patients with normal MRI, with less significant difference in patients with NE, may be due to the relatively small number of patients in this subgroup. SPECT and PET in our study recorded brain activity in an interictal state only, whereas long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring allowed the recording of brain activity in both interictal and ictal states. This was in agreement with the studies by Wehner and Lüders [34], and Obeid et al. [35],who concluded that interictal SPECT and PET are more useful for lateralizing than localizing the epileptic focus as the area diagnosed by SPECT and PET often extends beyond the epileptogenic zone, and therefore they cannot be used to delineate surgical borders. Other studies showed that interictal SPECT and PET are mainly used to augment the diagnosis of long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring to avoid phase II evaluation [8],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40].
| Conclusion | | |
Long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring is the cornerstone in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy surgery. Interictal MEG complements long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring in the diagnosis of the epileptogenic zone, whereas interictal 123 I-IMZ SPECT and interictal 18 F-FDG PET are mainly used to augment the diagnosis of long-term scalp video-EEG monitoring to avoid phase II evaluation.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Siegel AM. Presurgical evaluation and surgical treatment of medically refractory epilepsy. Neurosurg Rev 2004; 27 :1-18.  |
| 2. | Hauser WA. The natural history of seizures. In: Wyllie E, Gupta A, Lachhwani DK, editors. The treatment of epilepsy, principles and practice. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Williams and Wilkins; 2006. 117-124. |
| 3. | Shorvon SD. The epidemiology and treatment of chronic and refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia 1996; 37 (Suppl 2):S1-S1s3. |
| 4. | Gursahani R. Management in refractory epilepsy: beyond epilepsy surgery. J Pediatr Neurosci 2008; 3 :35-40. |
| 5. | Rosenow F, Lüders H. Presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. Brain 2001; 124 (Pt 9):1683-700. |
| 6. | Panigrahi M, Jayalakshmi S. Presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. J Pediatr Neurosci 2008; 3 :74-81. |
| 7. | Carreno M, Luders H General principles of presurgical evaluation. In: Luders H, Comair Y, editors Epilepsy surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams; 2001. 185-200. |
| 8. | Gelþinienë G, Endzinienë M, Vaièienë N, Magistris M, Seeck M. Presurgical evaluation of epilepsy patients. Medicina (B Aires) 2008; 44 :585-592. |
| 9. | Kwan P, Arzimanoglou A, Berg AT, Brodie MJ, Allen Hauser W, Mathern G, et al. Definition of drug resistant epilepsy: consensus proposal by the ad hoc Task Force of the ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia 2010; 51 :1069-77. |
| 10. | Baumgartner C, Pataraia E. Revisiting the role of magnetoencephalography in epilepsy. Curr Opin Neurol 2006; 19 :181-6. |
| 11. | Tanaka F, Yonekura Y, Ikeda A, Terada K, Mikuni N, Nishizawa S, et al. Presurgical identification of epileptic foci with iodine-123 iomazenil SPET: comparison with brain perfusion SPET and FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24 :27-34. |
| 12. | Debets RM, Sadzot B, van Isselt JW, Brekelmans GJ, Meiners LC, van Huffelen AO, et al. Is 11 C-flumazenil PET superior to 18 FDG PET and 123 I-iomazenil SPECT in presurgical evaluation of temporal lobe epilepsy? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997; 62 :141-50. |
| 13. | Tellez-Zenteno J, Hernandez-Ronquillo L. A review of the epidemiology of temporal lobe epilepsyEpilepsy Res Treat20122012630853 |
| 14. | Iwasaki M, Nakasato N, Shamoto H, Nagamatsu K, Kanno A, Hatanaka K, Yoshimoto T Surgical implications of neuromagnetic spike localization in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2002; 43 :415-24. |
| 15. | Mamelak AN, Lopez N, Akhtari M, Sutherling WW. Magnetoencephalography-directed surgery in patients with neocortical epilepsy. J Neurosurg 2002; 97 :865-73. |
| 16. | Barkley GL, Baumgartner C. MEG and EEG in epilepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 20 :163-78. |
| 17. | Stefan H, Hummel C, Scheler G, Genow A, Druschky K, Tilz C, et al. Magnetic brain source imaging of focal epileptic activity: a synopsis of 455 cases. Brain 2003; 126 (Pt 11):2396-405. |
| 18. | Assaf BA, Karkar KM, Laxer KD, Garcia PA, Austin EJ, Barbaro NM, Aminoff MJ. Magnetoencephalography source localization and surgical outcome in temporal lobe epilepsy. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 :2066-76. |
| 19. | Genow A, Hummel C, Scheler G, Hopfengärtner R, Kaltenhäuser M, Buchfelder M, et al. Epilepsy surgery, resection volume and MSI localization in lesional frontal lobe epilepsy. Neuroimage 2004; 21:444-9. |
| 20. | Fischer MJ, Scheler G, Stefan H. Utilization of magnetoencephalography results to obtain favourable outcomes in epilepsy surgery. Brain 2005; 128 (Pt 1):153-7. |
| 21. | Papanicolaou AC, Pataraia E, Billingsley-Marshall R, Castillo EM, Wheless JW, Swank P, et al. Toward the substitution of invasive electroencephalography in epilepsy surgery. J Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 22 :231-7. |
| 22. | Knowlton RC, Elgavish R, Howell J, Blount J, Burneo JG, Faught E, et al. Magnetic source imaging versus intracranial electroencephalogram in epilepsy surgery: a prospective study. Ann Neurol 2006; 59 :835-42. |
| 23. | Paulini A, Fischer M, Rampp S, Scheler G, Hopfengärtner R, Kaltenhäuser M, et al. Lobar localization information in epilepsy patients: MEG - a useful tool in routine presurgical diagnosis. Epilepsy Res 2007; 76 :124-30. |
| 24. | Hillebrand A, Barnes GR. A quantitative assessment of the sensitivity of whole-head MEG to activity in the adult human cortex. Neuroimage 2002; 16 (Pt 1):638-50. |
| 25. | Goldenholz DM, Ahlfors SP, Hämäläinen MS, Sharon D, Ishitobi M, Vaina LM, Stufflebeam SM. Mapping the signal-to-noise-ratios of cortical sources in magnetoencephalography and electroencephalography. Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30 :1077-86. |
| 26. | Stufflebeam SM, Tanaka N, Ahlfors SP. Clinical applications of magnetoencephalography. Hum Brain Mapp 2009; 30 :1813-23. |
| 27. | Pataraia E, Baumgartner C, Lindinger G, Deeke L. Magnetoencephalography in presurgical epilepsy evaluation. Neurosurg Rev 2002; 25 :141-159. |
| 28. | Pataraia E, Simos PG, Castillo EM, Billingsley RL, Sarkari S, Wheless JW, et al. Does magnetoencephalography add to scalp video-EEG as a diagnostic tool in epilepsy surgery? Neurology 2004; 62 :943-8. |
| 29. | Verrotti A, Pizzella V, Madonna L, Franciotti R, Trotta D, Morgese G, et al. Magnetoencephalographic and electroencephalographic evaluation in patients with cryptogenetic partial epilepsy. Neurophysiol Clin 2003; 33 :174-9. |
| 30. | de Jongh A, de Munck JC, Gonçalves SI, Ossenblok P. Differences in MEG/EEG epileptic spike yields explained by regional differences in signal-to-noise ratios. J Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 22 :153-8. |
| 31. | Iwasaki M, Pestana E, Burgess RC, Lüders HO, Shamoto H, Nakasato N. Detection of epileptiform activity by human interpreters: blinded comparison between electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography. Epilepsia 2005; 46 :59-68. |
| 32. | Knake S, Halgren E, Shiraishi H, Hara K, Hamer HM, Grant PE, et al. The value of multichannel MEG and EEG in the presurgical evaluation of 70 epilepsy patients. Epilepsy Res 2006; 69 :80-6. |
| 33. | Ramantani G, Boor R, Paetau R, Ille N, Feneberg R, Rupp A, et al. MEG versus EEG: influence of background activity on interictal spike detection. J Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 23 :498-508. |
| 34. | Wehner T, Lüders H. Role of neuroimaging in the presurgical evaluation of epilepsy. J Clin Neurol 2008; 4:1-16. |
| 35. | Obeid M, Wyllie E, Rahi AC, Mikati MA. Approach to pediatric epilepsy surgery: state of the art. Part I: general principles and presurgical workup. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2009; 13 :102-14. |
| 36. | Choi JY, Kim SJ, Hong SB, Seo DW, Hong SC, Kim BT, Kim SE. Extratemporal hypometabolism on FDG PET in temporal lobe epilepsy as a predictor of seizure outcome after temporal lobectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30 :581-7. |
| 37. | Lee SK, Lee SY, Kim KK, Hong KS, Lee DS, Chung CK. Surgical outcome and prognostic factors of cryptogenic neocortical epilepsy. Ann Neurol 2005; 58 :525-32. |
| 38. | Salmenpera TM, Duncan JS. Imaging in epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76 (Suppl 3):iii2-iii10. |
| 39. | Yun CH, Lee SK, Lee SY, Kim KK, Jeong SW, Chung CK. Prognostic factors in neocortical epilepsy surgery: multivariate analysis. Epilepsia 2006; 47 :574-9. |
| 40. | Vinton AB, Carne R, Hicks RJ, Desmond PM, Kilpatrick C, Kaye AH, O′Brien TJ. The extent of resection of FDG-PET hypometabolism relates to outcome of temporal lobectomy. Brain 2007; 13 (Pt 2): 548-60. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]
|
Search Pubmed for