Stereoelectroencephalography Versus Subdural Electrodes for Localization of the Epileptogenic Zone: What Is the Evidence?
- 93 Downloads
Accurate and safe localization of epileptic foci is the crux of surgical therapy for focal epilepsy. As an initial evaluation, patients with drug-resistant epilepsy often undergo evaluation by noninvasive methods to identify the epileptic focus (i.e., the epileptogenic zone (EZ)). When there is incongruence of noninvasive neuroimaging, electroencephalographic, and clinical data, direct intracranial recordings of the brain are often necessary to delineate the EZ and determine the best course of treatment. Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) and subdural electrodes (SDEs) are the 2 most common methods for recording directly from the cortex to delineate the EZ. For the past several decades, SEEG and SDEs have been used almost exclusively in specific geographic regions (i.e., France and Italy for stereo-EEG and elsewhere for SDEs) for virtually the same indications. In the last decade, however, stereo-EEG has started to spread from select centers in Europe to many locations worldwide. Nevertheless, it is still not the preferred method for invasive localization of the EZ at many centers that continue to employ SDEs exclusively. Despite the increased dissemination of the SEEG method throughout the globe, important questions remain unanswered. Which method (SEEG or SDEs) is superior for identification of the EZ and does it depend on the etiology of epilepsy? Which technique is safer and does this hold for all patient populations? Should these 2 methods have equivalent indications or be used selectively for different focal epilepsies? In this review, we seek to address these questions using current invasive monitoring literature. Available meta-analyses of observational data suggest that SEEG is safer than SDEs, but it is less clear from available data which method is more accurate at delineating the EZ.
Key WordsEpilepsy seizures neuroimaging neurosurgery focal cortical dysplasia tumor stereotaxy
Required Author Forms
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
- 2.Abou-Al-Shaar H, Brock AA, Kundu B, Englot DJ, Rolston JD. Increased nationwide use of stereoencephalography for intracranial epilepsy electroencephalography recordings. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia, 53, 132–134 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Lüders HO, Najm I, Nair D, Widdess-Walsh P, Bingman W. The epileptogenic zone: general principles. Epileptic Disorders, 8(2), 1–9 (2006).Google Scholar
- 5.Kahane P, Landré E, Minotti L, Francione S, Ryvlin P. The Bancaud and Talairach view on the epileptogenic zone: a working hypothesis. Epileptic Disorders, 8(2), 16–26 (2006).Google Scholar
- 13.Avanzini G, Tassi L. Epilepsy surgery in Italy. In: Textbook of Epilepsy Surgery. (CRC Press, 2008) 94–98.Google Scholar
- 16.Abou-Al-Shaar H, Brock AA, Kundu B, Englot DJ, Rolston JD. Increased nationwide use of stereoencephalography for intracranial epilepsy electroencephalography recordings. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, (2018).Google Scholar
- 23.Minotti L, Montavont A, Scholly J, Tyvaert L, Taussig D. Indications and limits of stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG). Neurophysiologie Clinique, (2018).Google Scholar
- 24.Abel TJ, Osorio RV, Amorim-Leite R et al. Frameless Robot-Assisted Stereoelectroencephalography in Children: Technical Note and Comparison with Talairach Frame Technique. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, In Press (2018).Google Scholar
- 27.Abel TJ, Varela Osorio R, Amorim-Leite R et al. Frameless robot-assisted stereoelectroencephalography in children: technical aspects and comparison with Talairach frame technique. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 1–10 (2018).Google Scholar
- 28.Joswig H, Benson CM, Parrent AG, MacDougall KW, Steven DA. Operative Nuances of Stereotactic Leksell Frame-Based Depth Electrode Implantation. Operative Neurosurgery, (2017).Google Scholar
- 33.Nagahama Y, Schmitt AJ, Nakagawa D et al. Intracranial EEG for seizure focus localization: evolving techniques, outcomes, complications, and utility of combining surface and depth electrodes. Journal of Neurosurgery, 1–13 (2018).Google Scholar
- 37.Abel TJ, Woodroffe RW, Nourski KV et al. Role of the temporal pole in temporal lobe epilepsy seizure networks: an intracranial electrode investigation. Journal of Neurosurgery, 1–9 (2017).Google Scholar
- 47.Ho AL, Muftuoglu Y, Pendharkar AV et al. Robot-guided pediatric stereoelectroencephalography: single-institution experience. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 1–8 (2018).Google Scholar
- 48.Goldstein HE, Youngerman BE, Shao B et al. Safety and efficacy of stereoelectroencephalography in pediatric focal epilepsy: a single-center experience. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 1–9 (2018).Google Scholar
- 51.Johnston Jr JM, Mangano FT, Ojemann JG, Park TS, Trevathan E, Smyth MD. Complications of invasive subdural electrode monitoring at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, 1994–2005. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 105(5), 343–347 (2006).Google Scholar
- 67.Cossu M, Cardinale F, Colombo N et al. Stereoelectroencephalography in the presurgical evaluation of children with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 103(4), 333–343 (2005).Google Scholar