RESUMEN
Temporal encephaloceles (TE) are an under-identified, potentially intervenable cause of epilepsy. This systematic review consolidates the current data to identify the major clinical, neuroimaging, and EEG features and surgical outcomes of epilepsy associated with TE. Literature searches were carried out using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 7, 2023. Studies were included if they described clinical, neuroimaging, EEG, or surgical data in ≥5 patients with TE and epilepsy. Of 562 studies identified in the search, 24 met the eligibility criteria, reporting 423 unique patients with both epilepsy and TE. Compared to epilepsy patients without TE, those with TE had a higher mean age of seizure onset and were less likely to have a history of febrile seizures. Seizure semiologies were variable, but primarily mirrored temporal lobe onset patterns. Epilepsy patients with TE had a higher likelihood of having clinical or radiographic features of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) than those without. Brain MRI may show ipsilateral mesial temporal sclerosis (16 %). CT scans of the skull base usually revealed bony defects near the TE (90 %). Brain PET scans primarily showed ipsilateral temporal lobe hypometabolism (80 %), mostly in the anterior temporal lobe (67 %). Scalp EEG mostly lateralized ipsilateral to the implicated TE (92 % seizure onset) and localized to the temporal lobe (96 %). Intracranial EEG revealed seizure onset near the TE (11 of 12 cases including TE-adjacent electrodes) with variable timing of spread to the ipsilateral hippocampus. After surgical treatment of the TE, the rate of Engel I or ILAE 1 outcomes at one year was 75 % for lesionectomy, 85 % for anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL), and 80 % for ATL with amygdalohippocampectomy. Further studies are needed to better elucidate the relationship between IIH, TE, and epilepsy, improve the identification of TE, and optimize surgical interventions.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Neurological consultation for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is common; it is currently unknown whether the neurologist's approach to inpatient consultation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 should differ from the paradigm used to evaluate hospitalized patients with similar respiratory viruses. The goal of the present study is to determine if the preponderance of new neurologic diagnoses differs between inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 and similar non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses for whom neurology is consulted. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart analysis of inpatient neurologic consultations at three major Philadelphia-based hospitals. We compared the final neurologic diagnosis of 152 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 to 54 patients with a similar ubiquitous non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory virus (influenza A, influenza B, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, or adenovirus, the most commonly tested respiratory viruses at our institution). Secondary metrics included age, sex, level of care, prior neurologic diagnoses, and mortality. A multinomial logistic regression model was utilized to evaluate the relative difference between diagnostic category groups on all metrics. Results: The proportion of patients with seizure who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) was significantly higher than those who were admitted to a medical-surgical floor. SARS-CoV-2 was also associated with increased risk for ICU admission compared to other common respiratory viruses. SARS-CoV-2 inpatients requiring neurologic consultation were also more likely to be older and female as compared to the non-SARS-CoV-2 cohort. In other domains, the proportion of neurologic diagnoses between SAR-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Patients requiring inpatient neurologic consultation with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection or another respiratory virus were found to be remarkably similar in terms of their ultimate neurologic diagnosis, with the exception of a larger preponderance of seizure in critical-care-level patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study suggests that the neurological approach to patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 should be similar to that for patients with similar common respiratory infections, noting that seizure was seen more frequently in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.