Long-term outcomes in patients after epilepsy surgery failure

Investor logo

Warning

This publication doesn't include Faculty of Economics and Administration. It includes Faculty of Medicine. Official publication website can be found on muni.cz.
Authors

RYZÍ Michal BRÁZDIL Milan NOVÁK Zdeněk HEMZA Jan CHRASTINA Jan OŠLEJŠKOVÁ Hana REKTOR Ivan KUBA Robert

Year of publication 2015
Type Article in Periodical
Magazine / Source Epilepsy Research
MU Faculty or unit

Faculty of Medicine

Citation
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2014.11.011
Field Neurology, neurosurgery, neurosciences
Keywords Epilepsy surgery; Failure; Reoperation; Vagus nerve stimulation; Treatment options
Attached files
Description Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to analyze the long-term outcomes of patients who were classified as Engel IV one year after resective epilepsy surgery. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment options and to examine the reasons that the patients did not undergo resective reoperation. Methods: Our study was designed as a retrospective open-label investigation of the long-term outcomes of 34 patients (12% of all surgically treated patients) who were classified as Engel IV one year after epilepsy surgery. Results: At the last follow-up visit (average of 7.6 +/- 4.2 years after surgery), 12 of the 34 examined patients (35.3%) were still classified as Engel IV; 22 of the 34 patients (64.7%) were improved (Engel I III). Of the 34 patients, 8 (23.5%) achieved an excellent outcome, classified as Engel I, 3 patients (8.8%) were classified as Engel II, and 11 patients (32.4%) as Engel III. The seizure outcome in the patients classified as Engel I was achieved by resective reoperation in 4; by a change in antiepileptic medication in 3 patients; and by vagus nerve stimulation (VHS) in 1 patient. The seizure outcome of Engel II was achieved by a change in antiepileptic medication in all 3 patients. Of the 34 patients, a total of 6 (17.6%) underwent resective reoperation only. The major reasons for this were the absence of a plausible hypothesis for invasive re-evaluation, the risk of postoperative deficit, and multifocal epilepsy in the rest of patients. Conclusion: Although the reoperation rate was relatively low in our series, we can achieve better or even excellent seizure outcomes using other procedures in patients for whom resective surgery initially failed.
Related projects:

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.