-
Review Meta Analysis
Evaluation of utility of Invasive Electroencephalography for definitive surgery in patients with Drug-Resistant epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- Mamta Patel, Amit K Mittal, Vibha Joshi, Mohit Agrawal, Babu VarthyaShobanSDepartment of Pharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India., Lokesh Saini, Aswini Saravanan, Abhishek Ani... more
- Department of Paediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India.
- World Neurosurg. 2024 Jul 1; 187: 172183.e2172-183.e2.
AbstractWhen noninvasive tests are unable to define the epileptogenic zone in patients, intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) is a method of localizing the epileptogenic zone. Compared with noninvasive evaluations, it offers more precise information about patterns of epileptiform activity, which results in useful diagnostic information that supports surgical decision-making. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the utility of iEEG for definitive surgery for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Online databases such as PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore were searched for MeSH terms and free-text keywords. The ROBINS I (risk of bias in non-randomized studies - of interventions) critical appraisal tool was used for quality assessment. The prevalence from different studies was pooled together using the inverse variance heterogeneity method. Egger's regression analysis and funnel plot were used to evaluate publication bias. The systematic review included 18 studies, and the meta-analysis included 10 studies to estimate the prevalence of seizure freedom (Engel class I) in patients undergoing surgery after iEEG. A total of 526 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 10 years. The overall pooled estimate of the prevalence of seizure freedom (Engel class I) for patients undergoing surgery after iEEG was 53% (95% confidence interval, 44%-62%). The results additionally demonstrated that 12 studies had a moderate risk of bias and 6 had a low risk. Future studies are crucial to enhance our understanding of iEEG to guide patient choices and unravel their implications.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes