Palliation for catastrophic nonlocalizing epilepsy: a retrospective case series of complete corpus callosotomy at a single institution.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors describe their 10-year single-institution experience with single-step complete corpus callosotomy (CCC) for seizure management in pediatric and adult patients with catastrophic, medically refractory, nonlocalizing epilepsy at Advent Health Orlando. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective observational study of patients aged 6 months to 49 years who underwent clinically indicated CCC for drug-resistant nonlocalizing epilepsy at Advent Health Orlando between July 2011 and July 2021. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 10 years. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients (57% of whom were male) who met eligibility criteria, 81 were pediatric patients and 20 were ≥ 18 years. All patients had seizures that appeared poorly lateralized on both electroencephalograms and clinical semiological studies. Of 54 patients with drop seizures before CCC, 29 (54%) achieved stable freedom from drop seizures after CCC. Of the 101 patients, 14 (13.9%) experienced stable resolution of all types of clinical seizures (International League Against Epilepsy classes 1 and 2). The most common postoperative neurological complication was a transient disconnection syndrome, observed in 50% of patients; of those patients, 73% experienced syndrome resolution within 2 months after surgery, and all resolved by the 2-year follow-up. Formal neuropsychological test results were stable in 13 patients assessed after CCC. CONCLUSIONS: CCC is an effective and well-tolerated palliative surgical technique. In this study, drop attacks were reduced after CCC but could recur for the first time as late as 44 months after surgery. Other seizure types were also reduced postoperatively but could recur for the first time as late as 28 months after surgery. Nearly 14% of patients achieved stable and complete freedom from seizures after CCC. Re-evaluation after CCC can reveal lateralized seizure onset in some patients.

Comparison of care accessibility, costs, and quality with face-to-face and telehealth epilepsy clinic visits.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on reimbursement for telehealth visits were lifted and this visit type was suddenly available to patients around the United States of America. Telehealth visits offer potential cost savings for patients and families, which may vary by region of the world studied. Also, aggressiveness of the care patients receive may differ, and patients or families may be more likely to choose one visit type over another based on seizure control. This is a prospective face-to-face clinic versus telehealth clinic visit comparison study involving patients with seizures, their legal guardians, and caretakers who attend clinic. We compared travel distance, work-related factors, childcare, satisfaction of care, changes in seizure medication or diagnostics tests ordered, and willingness to cancel appointments to better understand the behavioral patterns of patients, caretakers, and providers. Our results indicate that many patients and families still prefer in-person interactions with their medical providers. Patient and family satisfaction levels were equal with both visit types. No significant difference was seen in medical management between face-to-face and telehealth visits. Also, prior seizure control did not dictate the type of visit chosen. Telehealth participants were significantly more willing to cancel appointments if asked to switch to face-to-face then face-to-face participants asked to complete telehealth visits. Surprisingly, we found that patients and families choosing telehealth were not statistically more likely to be employed or take less time off work. Also, distance from home to office was not significantly shorter for participants choosing face-to-face visits. Offering a combination of telehealth and face-to-face visits appears to be the optimal strategy in caring for patients with controlled and uncontrolled seizure disorders to ensure adherence with clinic visits and satisfaction with care. Our study suggests that providers are equally willing to adjust medications or order additional diagnostic testing regardless of visit type. Patients and families may be less likely to cancel telehealth visits than face-to-face visits; this finding may translate to improved seizure control and long-term decreased cost of care.

Neural fragility as an EEG marker of the seizure onset zone.

Over 15 million patients with epilepsy worldwide do not respond to drugs. Successful surgical treatment requires complete removal or disconnection of the seizure onset zone (SOZ), brain region(s) where seizures originate. Unfortunately, surgical success rates vary between 30 and 70% because no clinically validated biological marker of the SOZ exists. We develop and retrospectively validate a new electroencephalogram (EEG) marker-neural fragility-in a retrospective analysis of 91 patients by using neural fragility of the annotated SOZ as a metric to predict surgical outcomes. Fragility predicts 43 out of 47 surgical failures, with an overall prediction accuracy of 76% compared with the accuracy of clinicians at 48% (successful outcomes). In failed outcomes, we identify fragile regions that were untreated. When compared to 20 EEG features proposed as SOZ markers, fragility outperformed in predictive power and interpretability, which suggests neural fragility as an EEG biomarker of the SOZ.