Randomized controlled trial of 2.5-cm versus 3.5-cm mesial temporal resection--Part 2: volumetric resection extent and subgroup analyses.

BACKGROUND: This paper is addressing outcome differences in interesting subgroups from a previous randomized controlled trial of the extent of mesial temporal lobe resection (TLR) for drug-resistant epilepsy, by looking at effects of randomization, intended resection group, center, and true resection extent on seizure outcome. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-nine cases with volumetrically assessed resection extent were used. Analyses of the extent of resection and subgroups and within subgroups for the two treatment arms will be performed, looking for confounding factors and using statistical methods (chi-square test, logistic regression analysis, and two-factorial ANOVA). RESULTS: True resection extent varied considerably. Outcome comparison for right versus left resections, subgroups with mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS), or largest and smallest resections revealed no remarkable difference, compared to overall class I outcome. The intent-to-treat analyses within these subgroups revealed differences for class I outcome, albeit lacking in significance, except for better TLR outcome. Small true resection volume differences or randomization into the two resection groups could not explain the outcome differences between the selective amygdalohippocampectomy (SAH) and TLR subgroups. Logistic regression analysis showed an interaction between intended resection length and surgery type, confirming the impression of different impacts of the intended resection length under the two surgery types. The outcome difference between SAH and TLR was more likely explained by a center effect. In a two-factorial ANOVA for resected hippocampal volume, Engel outcome class I, and resection type, the outcome was not found to be correlated with true resection volume. A multifactorial logistic regression showed a mild interaction between the resection type with center on the Engel outcome class, extent of resection, and surgery type interacted, as did the extent of resection and center. CONCLUSION: Patients with quite similar extent of resection can be seizure free or non-seizure free. In this cohort, seizure freedom rates fell again when the extent of mesial resection was maximized. Differences in class I outcome for SAH and TLR were not due to erroneous randomization, true resection extent, or presence of MTS, but were influenced by a center effect. Subgroup analyses did not help to provide arguments to favor one surgery type over the other.

Randomized controlled trial of 2.5-cm versus 3.5-cm mesial temporal resection in temporal lobe epilepsy--Part 1: intent-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND: Only one prospective randomized study on the extent of mesial resection in surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) exists. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) examines whether 3.5-cm mesial resection is leading to a better seizure outcome than a 2.5-cm resection. METHODS: Three epilepsy surgery centers using similar MRI protocols, neuropsychological tests, and resection types for TLE surgery included 207 patients in a RCT with pre- and postoperative volumetrics. One hundred and four patients were randomized into a 2.5-cm resection group and 103 patients into a 3.5-cm resection group, i.e., an intended minimum resection length of 25 versus 35 mm for the hippocampus and parahippocampus. Primary outcome measure was seizure freedom Engel class I throughout the first year. The study was powered to detect a 20% difference in class I outcome. Seizure outcome was available for 207 patients, complete volumetric results for 179 patients. Outcome analysis was restricted to control of successful randomization and an intent-to-treat analysis of seizure outcome. RESULTS: The mean true resection volumes were significantly different for the 2.5-cm and 3.5-cm resection groups; thus, the randomization was successful. Median resection volume in the 2.5-cm group was 72.86% of initial volume and 83.44% in the 3.5-cm group. At 1 year, seizure outcome Engel class I was 74% in the 2.5-cm and 72.8% in the 3.5-cm resection group. CONCLUSIONS: The primary intent-to-treat analysis did not show a different seizure freedom rate for the more posteriorly reaching 3.5-cm resection group. It appears possible that not maximal volume resection but adequate volume resection leads to good seizure freedom.

Comparison of two different measurement techniques of hippocampal resection length in temporal lobe epilepsy: results of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumetry has evolved to a highly sensitive method for presurgical detection of hippocampal sclerosis in temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Seizure resolution and neuropsychological sequelae are believed to correlate with extent of resection. Therefore an easy volumetric method to determine extent of resection is desirable. The purpose of this work is to evaluate and compare two different measurement techniques for hippocampal resection length. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with a mean seizure history of 25.1 years and medically intractable TLE were included. They underwent MRI with sagittal acquired 3D T1-weighted spoiled gradient recalled echo sequence in 1 mm(3) isotropic voxel. Hippocampal resection length was calculated with two different methods. In the slice counting method (SCM) the number of consecutive 1-mm-thick slices containing resected hippocampus formation was counted. In the vector method (VM) the sum of the oblique and thus longer distances between the centre points of segmented hippocampal areas on each MRI slice were calculated. RESULTS: Since the hippocampus is a curved body, the resection lengths measured with VM were always larger than measured with SCM. The comparison of resection length expressed in "percent of total length" showed good agreement between the two methods, because unlike the absolute values of resection length, the percentage values are unaffected by the three-dimensional shape of the hippocampus. CONCLUSION: The easier and quicker method of "slice counting" may be used to determine resection length expressed in "percent of total length", giving reliable values for resection length but causing less volumetric work.