• G J Brekelmans, W van Emde Boas, D N Velis, F H Lopes da Silva, P C van Rijen, and C W van Veelen.
• Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Instituut voor Epilepsiebestrijding Meer en Bosch/De Cruquiushoeve, Heemstede, The Netherlands.
• Epilepsia. 1998 Dec 1; 39 (12): 1290-301.

PurposeThe yield of subdural versus intracerebral electrodes for ictal localization remains a point of controversy. We assessed the relative sensitivity of these two types of electrodes per case.MethodsEighty-three intracranial recordings obtained from 82 patients were retrospectively reviewed to establish which type of electrode performed best in which patients and which seizure types.ResultsSixty (73%) of 82 patients had temporal lobe seizure onsets, eight frontal, nine widespread or multifocal/multilobar or both, whereas in five, seizure onset was not localized. Exclusive use of intracerebral electrodes would have been sufficient for accurate localization of the seizure-onset zone in all 35 patients with strictly mesial temporal seizure onsets. In only 20 (57%) of these 35 patients, the same decision would have been reached with exclusive use of subdural electrodes. In widespread neocortical and mesial temporal seizures (n = 25), yield of both electrode types was at about the same level, but neither was sufficient to identify the zone of ictal onset on its own. In frontal or multilobar seizures (n = 22), yield of subdural electrodes was slightly better then that of the intracerebral electrodes, but was not sufficient in all cases.ConclusionsThis study indicates that, depending on the characteristics of the seizure disorder, exclusive use of either intracerebral or subdural electrodes may easily result in erroneous diagnosis because of insufficient sampling of the brain. These findings are in contrast with other studies emphasizing the high yield of reliable EEG findings in evaluations with a single type of electrode and corroborate the results of one of our previous studies.

34 keywords...

hide…