An accelerated shift in the use of remote systems in epilepsy due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to describe epileptologists' opinion on the increased use of remote systems implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic across clinics, education, and scientific meetings activities. METHODS: Between April and May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey on remote systems use before and during the COVID-19 pandemic through the European reference center for rare and complex epilepsies (EpiCARE) network, the International and the French Leagues Against Epilepsy, and the International and the French Child Neurology Associations. After descriptive statistical analysis, we compared the results of France, China, and Italy. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two respondents from 35 countries completed the survey. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 63.4% had experienced remote systems for clinical care. During the pandemic, the use of remote clinics, either institutional or personal, significantly increased (p < 10-4). Eighty-three percent used remote systems with video, either institutional (75%) or personal (25%). During the pandemic, 84.6% of respondents involved in academic activities transformed their courses to online teaching. From February to July 2020, few scientific meetings relevant to epileptologists and routinely attended was adapted to virtual meeting (median: 1 [25th-75th percentile: 0-2]). Responders were quite satisfied with remote systems in all three activity domains. Interestingly, before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote systems were significantly more frequently used in China for clinical activity compared with France or Italy. This difference became less marked during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered how academic epileptologists carry out their core missions of clinical care, medical education, and scientific discovery and dissemination. Close attention to the impact of these changes is merited.

Technical aspects of pediatric epilepsy surgery: Report of a multicenter, multinational web-based survey by the ILAE Task Force on Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery.

Surgical techniques may vary extensively between centers. We report on a web-based survey aimed at evaluating the current technical approaches in different centers around the world performing epilepsy surgery in children. The intention of the survey was to establish technical standards. A request was made to 88 centers to complete a web-based survey comprising 51 questions. There were 14 questions related to general issues, 13 questions investigating the different technical aspects for children undergoing epilepsy surgery, and 24 questions investigating surgical strategies in pediatric epilepsy surgery. Fifty-two centers covering a wide geographic representation completed the questionnaire. The median number of resective procedures per center per year was 47. Some important technical practices appeared (>80% of the responses) such as the use of prophylactic antibiotics (98%), the use of high-speed drills for bone opening (88%), nonresorbable material for bone flap closure (85%), head fixation (90%), use of the surgical microscope (100%), and of free bone flaps. Other questions, such as the use of drains, electrocorticography (ECoG) and preoperative withdrawal of valproate, led to mixed, inconclusive results. Complications were noted in 3.8% of the patients submitted to cortical resection, 9.9% hemispheric surgery, 5% callosotomy, 1.8% depth electrode implantation, 5.9% subdural grids implantation, 11.9% hypothalamic hamartoma resection, 0.9% vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and 0.5% deep brain stimulation. There were no major differences across regions or countries in any of the subitems above. The present data offer the first overview of the technical aspects of pediatric epilepsy surgery worldwide. Surprisingly, there seem to be more similarities than differences. That aside many of the evaluated issues should be examined by adequately designed multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Further knowledge on these technical issues might lead to increased standardization and lower costs in the future, as well as definitive practice guidelines.