Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation: a prospective study

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation : a prospective study. / Sharma, P; Scherg, M; Pinborg, L H; Fabricius, M; Rubboli, G; Pedersen, B; Leffers, A-M; Uldall, P; Jespersen, B; Brennum, J; Henriksen, O M; Beniczky, S.

In: European Journal of Neurology, Vol. 25, No. 9, 2018, p. 1154-1160.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Sharma, P, Scherg, M, Pinborg, LH, Fabricius, M, Rubboli, G, Pedersen, B, Leffers, A-M, Uldall, P, Jespersen, B, Brennum, J, Henriksen, OM & Beniczky, S 2018, 'Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation: a prospective study', European Journal of Neurology, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1154-1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13676

APA

Sharma, P., Scherg, M., Pinborg, L. H., Fabricius, M., Rubboli, G., Pedersen, B., Leffers, A-M., Uldall, P., Jespersen, B., Brennum, J., Henriksen, O. M., & Beniczky, S. (2018). Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation: a prospective study. European Journal of Neurology, 25(9), 1154-1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13676

Vancouver

Sharma P, Scherg M, Pinborg LH, Fabricius M, Rubboli G, Pedersen B et al. Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation: a prospective study. European Journal of Neurology. 2018;25(9):1154-1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13676

Author

Sharma, P ; Scherg, M ; Pinborg, L H ; Fabricius, M ; Rubboli, G ; Pedersen, B ; Leffers, A-M ; Uldall, P ; Jespersen, B ; Brennum, J ; Henriksen, O M ; Beniczky, S. / Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation : a prospective study. In: European Journal of Neurology. 2018 ; Vol. 25, No. 9. pp. 1154-1160.

Bibtex

@article{e4c6cd6657604256b60c61292d4fda9a,
title = "Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation: a prospective study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate localization of the epileptic focus is essential for surgical treatment of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Electric source imaging (ESI) is increasingly used in pre-surgical evaluation. However, most previous studies have analysed interictal (II) discharges. Prospective studies comparing the feasibility and accuracy of II and ictal (IC) ESI are lacking.METHODS: We prospectively analysed long-term video-electroencephalography recordings (LTM) of patients admitted for pre-surgical evaluation. We performed ESI of II and IC signals using two methods, i.e. equivalent current dipole (ECD) and a distributed source model (DSM). LTM recordings employed the standard 25-electrode array (including inferior temporal electrodes). An age-matched template head model was used for source analysis. Results were compared with intracranial recordings, conventional neuroimaging methods [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)] and outcome at 1 year after surgery.RESULTS: A total of 87 consecutive patients were analysed. ECD gave a significantly higher proportion of patients with localized focal abnormalities (94%) compared with MRI (70%), PET (66%) and SPECT (64%). Agreement between the ESI methods and intracranial recording was moderate to substantial (k = 0.56-0.79). A total of 54 patients were operated (47 patients more than 1 year ago) and 62% of them became seizure-free. The localization accuracy of II-ESI was 51% for DSM and 57% for ECD, and that for IC-ESI was 51% for DSM and 62% for ECD. The differences between the ESI methods were not significant. Differences in localization accuracy between ESI and MRI (55%), PET (33%) and SPECT (40%) were not significant.CONCLUSIONS: The II-ESI and IC-ESI of LTM data have high feasibility and their localization accuracy is similar to that of conventional neuroimaging methods.",
author = "P Sharma and M Scherg and Pinborg, {L H} and M Fabricius and G Rubboli and B Pedersen and A-M Leffers and P Uldall and B Jespersen and J Brennum and Henriksen, {O M} and S Beniczky",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2018 EAN.",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1111/ene.13676",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1154--1160",
journal = "European Journal of Neurology",
issn = "1351-5101",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ictal and interictal electric source imaging in pre-surgical evaluation

T2 - a prospective study

AU - Sharma, P

AU - Scherg, M

AU - Pinborg, L H

AU - Fabricius, M

AU - Rubboli, G

AU - Pedersen, B

AU - Leffers, A-M

AU - Uldall, P

AU - Jespersen, B

AU - Brennum, J

AU - Henriksen, O M

AU - Beniczky, S

N1 - © 2018 EAN.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate localization of the epileptic focus is essential for surgical treatment of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Electric source imaging (ESI) is increasingly used in pre-surgical evaluation. However, most previous studies have analysed interictal (II) discharges. Prospective studies comparing the feasibility and accuracy of II and ictal (IC) ESI are lacking.METHODS: We prospectively analysed long-term video-electroencephalography recordings (LTM) of patients admitted for pre-surgical evaluation. We performed ESI of II and IC signals using two methods, i.e. equivalent current dipole (ECD) and a distributed source model (DSM). LTM recordings employed the standard 25-electrode array (including inferior temporal electrodes). An age-matched template head model was used for source analysis. Results were compared with intracranial recordings, conventional neuroimaging methods [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)] and outcome at 1 year after surgery.RESULTS: A total of 87 consecutive patients were analysed. ECD gave a significantly higher proportion of patients with localized focal abnormalities (94%) compared with MRI (70%), PET (66%) and SPECT (64%). Agreement between the ESI methods and intracranial recording was moderate to substantial (k = 0.56-0.79). A total of 54 patients were operated (47 patients more than 1 year ago) and 62% of them became seizure-free. The localization accuracy of II-ESI was 51% for DSM and 57% for ECD, and that for IC-ESI was 51% for DSM and 62% for ECD. The differences between the ESI methods were not significant. Differences in localization accuracy between ESI and MRI (55%), PET (33%) and SPECT (40%) were not significant.CONCLUSIONS: The II-ESI and IC-ESI of LTM data have high feasibility and their localization accuracy is similar to that of conventional neuroimaging methods.

AB - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate localization of the epileptic focus is essential for surgical treatment of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Electric source imaging (ESI) is increasingly used in pre-surgical evaluation. However, most previous studies have analysed interictal (II) discharges. Prospective studies comparing the feasibility and accuracy of II and ictal (IC) ESI are lacking.METHODS: We prospectively analysed long-term video-electroencephalography recordings (LTM) of patients admitted for pre-surgical evaluation. We performed ESI of II and IC signals using two methods, i.e. equivalent current dipole (ECD) and a distributed source model (DSM). LTM recordings employed the standard 25-electrode array (including inferior temporal electrodes). An age-matched template head model was used for source analysis. Results were compared with intracranial recordings, conventional neuroimaging methods [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)] and outcome at 1 year after surgery.RESULTS: A total of 87 consecutive patients were analysed. ECD gave a significantly higher proportion of patients with localized focal abnormalities (94%) compared with MRI (70%), PET (66%) and SPECT (64%). Agreement between the ESI methods and intracranial recording was moderate to substantial (k = 0.56-0.79). A total of 54 patients were operated (47 patients more than 1 year ago) and 62% of them became seizure-free. The localization accuracy of II-ESI was 51% for DSM and 57% for ECD, and that for IC-ESI was 51% for DSM and 62% for ECD. The differences between the ESI methods were not significant. Differences in localization accuracy between ESI and MRI (55%), PET (33%) and SPECT (40%) were not significant.CONCLUSIONS: The II-ESI and IC-ESI of LTM data have high feasibility and their localization accuracy is similar to that of conventional neuroimaging methods.

U2 - 10.1111/ene.13676

DO - 10.1111/ene.13676

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29751364

VL - 25

SP - 1154

EP - 1160

JO - European Journal of Neurology

JF - European Journal of Neurology

SN - 1351-5101

IS - 9

ER -

ID: 214458655