Emerging Technologies for Epilepsy Surgery.

Patients with medically refractory epilepsy, as defined by failure to achieve seizure freedom after adequate trials of 2 antiseizure medications, should be considered for early surgical evaluation. Achieving seizure freedom or meaningful seizure reduction, the goals of surgical treatment, can significantly improve quality of life while decreasing disease-related morbidity and mortality. Preoperative work up and imaging modalities aid in localization of epileptogenic zones that can be targeted in surgery. Resection of a seizure focus yields highest chances of seizure freedom; however, many promising minimally invasive or noninvasive treatment options have been developed in recent years that are closely intertwined with technological advancements and serve as viable alternatives to resection, particularly neuromodulation and ablation procedures. There are also new treatment options being developed and new neuromodulation targets being studied. Surgical treatment options should be thoughtfully selected based on each patient's individual disease process and preferences.

Anterior temporal lobectomy compared with laser thermal hippocampectomy for mesial temporal epilepsy: A threshold analysis study.

PURPOSE: Anterior Temporal Lobectomy (ATL) is the gold standard surgical treatment for refractory temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), but it carries the risks associated with invasiveness, including cognitive and visual deficits and potential damage to eloquent structures. Laser thermal hippocampectomy (LTH) is a new procedure that offers a less invasive alternative to the standard open approach. In this decision analysis, we determine the seizure freedom rate at which LTH would be equivalent to ATL. METHODS: MEDLINE searches were performed for studies of ATL from 1995 to 2014. Using complication and success rates from the literature, we constructed a decision analysis model for treatment with ATL and LTH. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from examining patient preferences in similar clinical conditions. LTH data were obtained from a preliminary multicenter study report following patients for 6-12 months. A sensitivity analysis in which major parameters were systematically varied within their 95% CIs was used. RESULTS: 350 studies involving 25,144 cases of ATL were included. Outcomes of LTH were taken from a recently presented multicenter series of 68 cases. Over a 10-year postoperative modeling period, LTH value was 5.9668 QALYs and ATL value was 5.8854. Sensitivity analysis revealed that probabilities of seizure control and late morbidity of LTH are most likely to affect outcomes compared to ATL. We calculated that LTH would need to stop disabling seizures (Engel class I) in at least 43% of cases and have fewer than 40% late mortality/morbidity to result in quality of life at least as good as that after ATL. CONCLUSIONS: This decision analysis based on early follow-up data suggests LTH has similar utility to ATL. These early data support LTH as a potentially comparable less invasive alternative to ATL in refractory TLE. LTH utility may remain comparable to ATL even if long-term seizure control is less than that of ATL. Larger prospective studies with long-term follow up will be needed to validate the true role of LTH in the refractory epilepsy patient population.