G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Seizure journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yseiz
Review
A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy James W. Leiphart a,b,c,d,*, Richard M. Young c, Donald C. Shields c a
Department of Neurosciences, Inova Medical System, Falls Church, VA, USA Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA c Department of Neurological Surgery, George Washington University Medical School, Washington, DC, USA d Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Biology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 5 June 2013 Received in revised form 7 September 2013 Accepted 12 October 2013
Purpose: Most deep brain stimulation targets for movement disorders were derived from effective ablative surgery targets. Similarly effective lesion targets for epilepsy control may help refine brain stimulation targeting for epilepsy. A literature review of past stereotactic lesions for epilepsy treatment was performed to provide historical context and possible anatomical guidance for current and future attempts at controlling epilepsy with electrical stimulation. This work was undertaken to provide insights for electrical stimulation targets in epilepsy treatment based on outcomes from previous ablative therapies. Methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies with the words ‘‘stereotactic surgery’’ and ‘‘epilepsy.’’ Post-operative results for 619 patients with stereotactic brain lesions targeting various anatomical foci were standardized using a modified Engel scale (1 ‘free of seizures’ to 3 ‘no significant improvement’). Each individual patient was entered into a database as a unique data point. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in reported seizure control among the different procedures and seizure types. The procedures that produced the best seizure control outcomes were the hippocampectomy, pallido-amygdalotomy, and amygdalohippocampectomy. Simple partial motor and combined generalized tonic clonic with complex partial seizure types demonstrated the best outcomes following surgery; complex partial and generalized tonic had the worst outcomes. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate the location of brain lesions has a significant effect on seizure control. Thus, future research designed to optimize brain stimulation targets for epilepsy control may be informed by previous ablative outcomes. ß 2013 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stereotactic Surgery Epilepsy surgery Literature review Lesionectomy Seizure
1. Introduction Epilepsy affects 4–8 out of 1000 people worldwide,1 and is characterized by recurrent seizures. Trauma is one of the two leading causes of epilepsy in the adult population younger than 65 years of age.2 Twenty to 30% of patients with epilepsy are not adequately controlled with medications,3 and only one-third of these patients are candidates for traditional surgical resections leaving a significant portion of this population with persistent seizures.4 Even among the paucity of patients in the United States with evaluations at Epilepsy Centers of Excellence,5 many are not candidates for surgical resection because: they present with a seizure focus that cannot be removed without causing significant disability, they have more than one focus of seizure activity, or they
do not have an identifiable seizure focus. Thus, strategies to electrically stimulate the brain are being developed as potential therapies to control intractable seizures.6–15 Stimulation strategies for the control of epilepsy vary widely, and multiple brain regions have been targeted with devices similar to those used for the treatment of movement disorders. Initial stimulation targets in patients with movement disorders were developed in light of prior experience with stereotactic lesions. In a similar way, clinical outcomes following stereotactic lesions in patients with epilepsy may help refine brain stimulation in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. To this end, we have performed a systematic review of stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy to evaluate the efficacy of each target lesion. 2. Methods
* Corresponding author at: Inova Department of Neurosciences, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA. Tel.: +1 703 776 8310; fax: +1 703 776 4018. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Leiphart).
A PubMed search was conducted using the words ‘‘epilepsy,’’ ‘‘surgery,’’ and ‘‘stereotactic.’’ Searches were limited to include only human subjects, and no date boundaries were set. Studies
1059-1311/$ – see front matter ß 2013 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
2
from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th World Congresses of Psychiatric Surgery were also included. This search returned 391 articles initially considered for this literature review, with dates ranging from 1965 to 2005. Strict inclusion criteria for the studies were used. To be included, each study must have employed focallytargeted stereotactic surgeries with one or two anatomical targets, patients must have undergone objective pre- and post-operative evaluations by a physician, and each study must have included lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Moreover, only the longest patient follow-up data for each group of investigators was included, as some articles were written periodically on patients as they were followed for many years. Once these criteria had been met, our final dataset consisted of 619 patients treated with stereotactic lesions for epilepsy from 42 different studies. These 619 patients were then standardized according to a 3 point modified Engel scale based on post-operative physician evaluations. This scale ranged from 1 to 3, with 1 corresponding to a seizure free outcome, 2 indicating significant reduction in seizures, and 3 indicating minimal or no reduction in seizures. This scale was used as the dependent variable for analysis. Patients were divided into groups according to their ablative procedure. This resulted in 26 groups. Groups containing less than 5 patients were not analyzed due to their low statistical power. The remaining 16 procedure groups from 42 studies including 619 subjects with their distributions are shown in Table 1. A KruskalWallis test was performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the outcomes from the 16 different anatomical targets using StatView1. Not all of the studies had clinical information that allowed for classification of seizure type. The studies with seizure classification data were also compared by seizure type using a Kruskal-Wallis test. This included 241 subjects from 21 studies.
Table 1 Number of patients analyzed by region of stereotactic lesion surgery for epilepsy.36–77 Area of lesion
Number of patients
Amygdalohippocampectomy Amygdalotomy Capsulotomy Cingulotomy Cortical Lesionectomy Dentatolysis Forelotomy Fornico-amygdalotomy Fornicotomy Fornicotomy with commisurotomy Hippocampectomy Hypothalotomy Pallido-amygdalotomy Pallidotomy Putaminectomy Thalamotomy
78 169 16 9 38 8 96 33 55 33 10 24 7 5 24 14
There was also a statistically significant difference in seizure control outcomes for different seizure types (p = 0.0018, Fig. 2). Patients with simple partial motor and those with combined generalized tonic–clonic with complex partial seizures demonstrated the best outcomes. Complex partial and generalized tonic types showed the worst outcomes. Table 2 shows the average seizure control outcome using the modified Engel scale for each lesion location by seizure type in patients with this data available. The low number of patients and missing data in several categories made meaningful statistical analysis impossible. 4. Discussion
3. Results The Kruskal-Wallis analysis determined that there was a statistically significant difference in seizure control outcomes among the different procedures shown in Fig. 1 (p = 0.026). The hippocampectomy (modified Engel scale: 1.4), pallido-amygdalotomy (1.71), and amygdalohippocampectomy (1.77) procedures resulted in the best seizure control outcomes. However, outcomes were poorest in patients undergoing cingulotomies (2.55), dentatolysis (2.36) and putamenectomies (2.13).
Brain stimulation techniques for the control of epilepsy7,16–20 include two basic approaches. In one approach a specific target, typically a nucleus or region of the cortex, is stimulated in an effort to reduce seizure frequency via effects through the entire brain.20 This method is advantageous since it can be utilized in patients who do not have a localized seizure focus. In the other approach, the identified seizure focus or foci are directly stimulated in an effort to disrupt seizures at their source.19 Although this requires an identified seizure focus, the advantage of this approach is that
Fig. 1. Average post-operative seizure control outcomes by target region for stereotactic lesion epilepsy surgeries. Modified Engel scale: (1) representing seizure freedom, (2) significant reduction in seizures, and (3) no significant reduction in seizures.
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
3
Fig. 2. Average post-operative seizure control outcomes by seizure type for stereotactic lesion epilepsy surgeries. Modified Engel scale: (1) representing seizure freedom, (2) significant reduction in seizures, and (3) no significant reduction in seizures.
the stimulation can be performed in a responsive manner if electrophysiological evidence of seizure onset can be identified. Unlike the first approach, which requires continuous or pulsed stimulation, responsive stimulation has the potential to require less overall device output, and therefore a smaller battery source. Both methods have included stimulation parameters similar to those utilized in deep brain stimulation for movement disorders.8,14 Both methods have been utilized in an attempt to control seizures of various types originating from a variety of locations.19,20 Although the mechanisms by which deep brain stimulation modulates movement disorders are incompletely understood, many investigators believe that it acts by inhibiting or blocking the stimulated brain region, similar to the effects of stereotactic lesions.21,22 Non-seizure focus stimulation has been applied to various regions of the brain including the subthalamic nucleus,8,10 hippocampus,12,23,24 anterior thalamus,9,25 centromedian thalamus,11,25 cerebellum,26–28 and caudate.29 Attempts to stimulate the seizure focus/foci have also utilized several different targets, including the hippocampus and various cortical regions.6,7 In addition to findings from the above studies, historical lesion experience in seizure control may help guide the choice of stimulation targets. Stereotactic lesion surgery has the advantages of lower cost and elimination of the need for permanently implanted device which is at risk of infection, breakage, malfunction and would necessarily require a reoperation at some point for replacement of the electrical generator. The advantages of implanting a stimulator over producing a stereotactic lesion are the reversibility and adaptability of the therapy. Except for the subthalamic nucleus, lesion targets analyzed in the present study were similar to the various targets utilized in stimulation studies. These included lesions of the hippocampus,
thalamus, and cerebellum. In addition, many other regions were lesioned in the analyzed studies, suggesting the possibility of other potential targets. Not surprisingly, hippocampal lesions produced the best seizure reduction outcomes. This procedure is essentially a hippocampectomy utilizing a minimally invasive stereotactic approach. Open anterior temporal lobectomy with hippocampectomy has been extensively studied, and has demonstrated the best seizure control outcomes among all epilepsy surgery procedures.30–32 Moreover, hypothalotomy patients demonstrated good seizure control outcomes, as this procedure was performed exclusively for the treatment of hypothalamic hamartomas. Likewise, lesional epilepsy surgeries tended to have better outcomes than non-lesional surgeries. Of interest, the amygdala was not targeted for stimulation, although the amygdalotomy resulted in better seizure control outcomes when utilized in combination with lesions at other sites like the amygdalohippocampectomy, the fornico-amygdalotomy, and the pallodo-amygdalotomy. Nonetheless, amygdalotomy alone did not produce clinically significant seizure control outcomes. Thalamotomy and cortical lesionectomy procedures demonstrated favorable seizure control outcomes – providing further justification for their use as targets in the larger clinical studies of brain stimulation for epilepsy.6,7,16–18 Of note, one procedure that had surprisingly good seizure control outcomes was the forelotomy. The fields of Forel have not been stimulated for attempted seizure control, but this region may deserve consideration in future studies. The closest analogous procedure to cerebellum stimulation would be the dentatolysis, which had poor seizure control outcomes. Many of the studies reviewed had sufficient detail to draw conclusions concerning seizure control outcomes from stereotactic lesions. Patients showing the greatest reduction in seizures were those that had simple partial motor seizures. This was unexpected
Table 2 Table of average post-operative seizure control outcomes by seizure type and target region for stereotactic lesion epilepsy surgeries. Modified Engel scale: (1) representing seizure freedom, (2) significant reduction in seizures, and (3) no significant reduction in seizures. The number within the parentheses is the number of patients in each group. CP: complex partial; GT: generalized tonic; GTC: generalized tonic clonic; SP: simple partial. CP
GT
Amygdalohippocampectomy Amygdalotomy Capsulotomy Cortical lesionectomy Dentatolysis Forelotomy Fornico-amygdalotomy Fornicotomy Hypothalotomy
1.7 2.1 – – – 3.0 2.1 2.2 –
(23) (18)
(11) (7) (12)
GTC
GTC/CP
SP
Motor
SP Psychic
– – 1.5 (4) – – 2.2 (11) – – –
– 1.5 2.2 – 2.0 1.4 – 1.9 –
– 1.0 (2) – 1.0 (2) – 2.3 (3) – –
– – – 1.0 (4) 2.7 (3) 1.3 (20) – – –
– 1.0 (1) – – – – – – 1.8 (12)
(13) (11) (4) (32) (42)
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
4
for two reasons. First, in previous epilepsy surgery series, simple partial seizures did not have the best post-operative outcomes.33 Second, the stereotactic lesion surgeries that demonstrated the best outcomes were those that had hippocampectomies. Complex partial seizures are associated with hippocampal onset, so complex partial seizures would be expected to have the best outcomes.34 This may be due to inconsistent reporting of seizure types among the various studies. Only 39% of the patients with reported outcome data had reliable information to determine seizure type. Combined generalized tonic clonic and complex partial seizures had the next best outcomes. These cases probably represented complex partial seizures with secondary generalization. These good outcomes agree with epilepsy surgery studies that showed the best outcomes with complex partial seizures.35 Complex partial seizures alone had the worst post-operative outcomes from stereotactic lesion surgeries. Again, this surprising result calls into question the determination of seizure type in these studies. 5. Conclusions This study was designed to review potentially useful historical data concerning seizure control outcomes from stereotactic brain lesions. Lesions involving the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, and cortical foci showed the best seizure reduction outcomes. This corresponds with targets currently used in brain stimulation for epilepsy control. Seizure types that responded best to stereotactic lesioning were simple partial seizures and combined generalized tonic clonic/complex partial seizures. These findings may help optimize the selection of targets and patients appropriate for stimulation epilepsy surgery.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Conflicts of interest statement 21.
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
22.
23.
References 24. 1. Hauser WA. Incidence and prevalence. In: Engel Jr J, Pedley TA, editors. Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997 . 2. Hauser WA, Annegers JF, Rocca WA. Descriptive epidemiology of epilepsy: contributions of population-based studies from Rochester, Minnesota. Mayo Clinic proceedings, vol. 71, no. 6. 1996:576–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0025-6196(11)64115-3. PubMed PMID: 8642887. 3. Sander JWAS, Sillanpa¨a¨ M. Natural history and prognosis. In: Engel Jr J, Pedley TA, editors. Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. 4. Engel Jr J, Shewmon DA. Who should be considered a surgical candidate. In: Engel Jr J, editor. Surgical treatment of the epilepsies. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: LippincottRaven; 1996. 5. The National Association of Epilepsy C, Gumnit RJ, Walczak TS. Guidelines for essential services, personnel, and facilities in specialized epilepsy centers in the United States. Epilepsia 2001;42(6):804–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.15281157.2001.08701.x. 6. Fountas KN, Smith JR. A novel closed-loop stimulation system in the control of focal, medically refractory epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement 2007;97(Pt 2):357–62. PubMed PMID: 17691324. 7. Fountas KN, Smith JR, Murro AM, Politsky J, Park YD, Jenkins PD. Implantation of a closed-loop stimulation in the management of medically refractory focal epilepsy: a technical note. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 2005;83(4):153–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000088656. PubMed PMID: 16205108. 8. Handforth A, DeSalles AA, Krahl SE. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus as adjunct treatment for refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia 2006;47(7): 1239–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00563.x. PubMed PMID: 16886990. 9. Osorio I, Overman J, Giftakis J, Wilkinson SB. High frequency thalamic stimulation for inoperable mesial temporal epilepsy. Epilepsia 2007;48(8):1561–71. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01044.x. PubMed PMID: 17386053. 10. Shon YM, Lee KJ, Kim HJ, Chung YA, Ahn KJ, Kim YI, et al. Effect of chronic deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for frontal lobe epilepsy: subtraction SPECT analysis. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
2005;83(2–3):84–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000086867. PubMed PMID: 16006780. Velasco AL, Velasco F, Jimenez F, Velasco M, Castro G, Carrillo-Ruiz JD, et al. Neuromodulation of the centromedian thalamic nuclei in the treatment of generalized seizures and the improvement of the quality of life in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Epilepsia 2006;47(7):1203–12. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00593.x. PubMed PMID: 16886984. Velasco AL, Velasco F, Velasco M, Jimenez F, Carrillo-Ruiz JD, Castro G. The role of neuromodulation of the hippocampus in the treatment of intractable complex partial seizures of the temporal lobe. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement 2007;97(Pt 2):329–32. PubMed PMID: 17691319. Halpern CH, Samadani U, Litt B, Jaggi JL, Baltuch GH. Deep brain stimulation for epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics the Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 2008;5(1):59–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nurt.2007.10. 065. PubMed PMID: 18164484; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2941772. Velasco F, Velasco AL, Velasco M, Jimenez F, Carrillo-Ruiz JD, Castro G. Deep brain stimulation for treatment of the epilepsies: the centromedian thalamic target. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement 2007;97(Pt 2):337–42. PubMed PMID: 17691321. Zumsteg D, Lozano AM, Wennberg RA. Rhythmic cortical EEG synchronization with low frequency stimulation of the anterior and medial thalamus for epilepsy. Clinical Neurophysiology 2006;117(10):2272–8. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.06.707. S1388-2457(06)00970-9 [pii], PubMed PMID: 16920020, Epub 2006/08/22. Hodaie M, Wennberg RA, Dostrovsky JO, Lozano AM. Chronic anterior thalamus stimulation for intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia 2002;43(6):603–8. PubMed PMID: 12060019. Kerrigan JF, Litt B, Fisher RS, Cranstoun S, French JA, Blum DE, et al. Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia 2004;45(4):346–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.0013-9580.2004.01304.x. PubMed PMID: 15030497. Sun FT, Morrell MJ, Wharen Jr RE. Responsive cortical stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics the Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 2008;5(1):68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.nurt.2007.10.069. PubMed PMID: 18164485. Morrell MJ, Group RNSSiES. Responsive cortical stimulation for the treatment of medically intractable partial epilepsy. Neurology 2011;77(13):1295–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182302056. PubMed PMID: 21917777. Fisher R, Salanova V, Witt T, Worth R, Henry T, Gross R, et al. Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of thalamus for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia 2010;51(5):899–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15281167.2010.02536.x. PubMed PMID: 20331461, Epub 2010/03/25. Vitek JL. Deep brain stimulation: how does it work? Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2008;75(Suppl 2):S59–65. PubMed PMID: 18540149, Epub 2008/06/11. Perlmutter JS, Mink JW. Deep brain stimulation. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2006;29:229–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112824. PubMed PMID: 16776585, Epub 2006/06/17. Velasco M, Velasco F, Velasco AL, Boleaga B, Jimenez F, Brito F, et al. Subacute electrical stimulation of the hippocampus blocks intractable temporal lobe seizures and paroxysmal EEG activities. Epilepsia 2000;41(2):158–69. PubMed PMID: 10691112, Epub 2000/02/26. Boon P, Vonck K, De Herdt V, Van Dycke A, Goethals M, Goossens L, et al. Deep brain stimulation in patients with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2007;48(8):1551–60. PubMed PMID: 17726798. Andrade DM, Zumsteg D, Hamani C, Hodaie M, Sarkissian S, Lozano AM, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with thalamic deep brain stimulation for epilepsy. Neurology 2006;66(10):1571–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl. 0000206364.19772.39. 01.wnl.0000206364.19772.39 [pii], PubMed PMID: 16540602, Epub 2006/03/17. Wright GD, McLellan DL, Brice JG. A double-blind trial of chronic cerebellar stimulation in twelve patients with severe epilepsy. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1984;47(8):769–74. PubMed PMID: 6381652; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1027936. Davis R, Emmonds SE. Cerebellar stimulation for seizure control: 17-year study. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 1992;58(1–4):200–8. PubMed PMID: 1439341. Chkhenkeli SA, Sramka M, Lortkipanidze GS, Rakviashvili TN, Bregvadze E, Magalashvili GE, et al. Electrophysiological effects and clinical results of direct brain stimulation for intractable epilepsy. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 2004;106(4):318–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2004.01.009. PubMed PMID: 15297008. Chkhenkeli SA, Chkhenkeli IS. Effects of therapeutic stimulation of nucleus caudatus on epileptic electrical activity of brain in patients with intractable epilepsy. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 1997;69(1–4 Pt 2):221–4. PubMed PMID: 9711758. Tellez-Zenteno JF, Dhar R, Wiebe S. Long-term seizure outcomes following epilepsy surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain a Journal of Neurology 2005;128(Pt 5):1188–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh449. PubMed PMID: 15758038. Spencer S, Huh L. Outcomes of epilepsy surgery in adults and children. Lancet Neurology 2008;7(6):525–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422 (08)70109-1. S1474-4422(08)70109-1 [pii], PubMed PMID: 18485316, Epub 2008/05/20. Spencer SS, Berg AT, Vickrey BG, Sperling MR, Bazil CW, Shinnar S, et al. Initial outcomes in the multicenter study of epilepsy surgery. Neurology 2003;61(12): 1680–5. PubMed PMID: 14694029.
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 33. Spencer SS, Schramm J, Wyler A, O’Connor M, Orbach D, Krauss G, et al. Multiple subpial transection for intractable partial epilepsy: an international metaanalysis. Epilepsia 2002;43(2):141–5. PubMed PMID: 11903459, Epub 2002/ 03/21. 34. Spencer DD, Spencer SS, Mattson RH, Williamson PD, Novelly RA. Access to the posterior medial temporal lobe structures in the surgical treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurosurgery 1984;15(5):667–71. PubMed PMID: 6504282. 35. Spencer SS, Berg AT, Vickrey BG, Sperling MR, Bazil CW, Shinnar S, et al. Predicting long-term seizure outcome after resective epilepsy surgery: the multicenter study. Neurology 2005;65(6):912–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/ 01.wnl.0000176055.45774.71. PubMed PMID: 16186534. 36. Mingrino S, Schergna E. Stereotaxic anterior cingulotomy in the treatment of severe behavior disorders. In: Hitchcock E, Laitinen L, Vaernet K, editors. Psychosurgery: proceedings of the second international conference on psychsurgery held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas; 1972. p. 258–63. 37. Schulze-Bonhage A, Homberg V, Trippel M, Keimer R, Elger CE, Warnke PC, et al. Interstitial radiosurgery in the treatment of gelastic epilepsy due to hypothalamic hamartomas. Neurology 2004;62(4):644–7. PubMed PMID: 14981188. 38. Fujimoto Y, Kato A, Saitoh Y, Ninomiya H, Imai K, Sakakibara RI, et al. Stereotactic radiofrequency ablation for sessile hypothalamic hamartoma with an image fusion technique. Acta Neurochirurgica 2003;145(8):697–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-003-0077-3. PubMed PMID: 14520551, discussion -1. 39. Parrent AG, Blume WT. Stereotactic amygdalohippocampotomy for the treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 1999;40(10):1408–16. PubMed PMID: 10528937. 40. Kuzniecky R, Guthrie B, Mountz J, Bebin M, Faught E, Gilliam F, et al. Intrinsic epileptogenesis of hypothalamic hamartomas in gelastic epilepsy. Annals of Neurology 1997;42(1):60–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ana.410420111. PubMed PMID: 9225686. 41. Patil AA, Andrews R, Torkelson R. Stereotactic volumetric radiofrequency lesioning of intracranial structures for control of intractable seizures. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 1995;64(3):123–33. PubMed PMID: 8746501. 42. Narabayashi H, Mizutani T. Epileptic seizures and the stereotaxic amygdalotomy. Confinia Neurologica 1970;32(2):289–97. PubMed PMID: 4993814. 43. Schwab RS, Sweet WH, Mark VH, Kjellberg RN, Ervin FR. Treatment of intractable temporal lobe epilepsy by stereotactic amygdala lesions. Transactions of the American Neurological Association 1965;90:12–9. PubMed PMID: 5323371. 44. Vaernet K. Stereotaxic amygdalotomy in temporal lobe epilepsy. Confinia Neurologica 1972;34(2):176–80. PubMed PMID: 4579788, Epub 1972/01/01. 45. Nadvornik P, Sramka M, Gajdosova D, Kokavec M. Longitudinal hippocampectomy. A new stereotaxic approach to the gyrus hippocampi. Confinia Neurologica 1975;37(1–3):245–8. PubMed PMID: 805687. 46. Talairach J, Szikla G. Destruction partielle amygdalo-hippocampique par l’yttrium 90 dans le traitement de certaines e´pilepsies a` expression rhinence´phalique. Neurochirurgie 1965;11(3):233–40. PubMed PMID: 5320688, Epub 1965/ 05/01. 47. Heimburger RF, Small IF, Small JG, Milstein V, Moore D. Stereotactic amygdalotomy for convulsive and behavioral disorders. Long-term follow-up study. Applied Neurophysiology 1978;41(1–4):43–51. PubMed PMID: 365101, Epub 1978/01/01. 48. Ramamurthi B. Stereotactic surgery in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology India 1970;18(Suppl 1):42–5. PubMed PMID: 4927531. 49. Fraioli B, Guidetti. Effects of stereotactic lesions of the dentate nucleus of the cerebellum in man. Applied Neurophysiology 1975;38(2):81–90. PubMed PMID: 769688. 50. Hullay J, Gombi R, Velok G. Surgical and stereotactic attempts in intractable epilepsy. Acta Medica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1976;33(2):119–24. PubMed PMID: 801222. 51. Jinnai D, Mukawa J, Kobayashi K. Forel-H-tomy for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):159–65. PubMed PMID: 998341. 52. Barcia-Salorio JL, Broseta J. Stereotactic fornicotomy in temporal epilepsy: indications and long-term results. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):167– 75. PubMed PMID: 793308. 53. Mundinger F, Becker P, Groebner E, Bachschmid G. Late results of stereotactic surgery of epilepsy predominantly temporal lobetype. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):177–82. PubMed PMID: 826125. 54. Bouchard G. Basic targets and the different epilepsies. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):193–9. PubMed PMID: 793310.
5
55. Ganglberger JA. New possibilities of stereotactic treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):211–4. PubMed PMID: 793313, Epub 1976/01/01. 56. Parrent AG. Stereotactic radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of gelastic seizures associated with hypothalamic hamartoma. Case report. Journal of Neurosurgery 1999;91(5):881–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/jns.1999.91.5.0881. PubMed PMID: 10541251, Epub 1999/11/30. 57. Bouvier G, Saint-Hilaire JM, Maltais R, Belique R, Desrochers P. Stereotactic lesions in primary epilepsy of the limbic system. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum 1980;30:151–9. PubMed PMID: 7008517. 58. Sandok EK, Cascino GD. Surgical treatment for perirolandic lesional epilepsy. Epilepsia 1998;39(Suppl 4):S42–8. PubMed PMID: 9637592. 59. Kalanaraman S, Ramamurthi B. Stereotaxic surgery for generalised epilepsy. Neurology India 1970;18(Suppl 1):34–41. PubMed PMID: 4994422. 60. Nashold Jr BS, Flanigin Jr H, Wilson WP, Stewart B. Stereotactic evaluation of bitemporal epilepsy with electrodes and lesions. Confinia Neurologica 1973;35(2):94–100. PubMed PMID: 4575254. 61. Poblete M, Palestini M, Figueroa E, Gallardo R, Rojas J, Covarrubias MI, et al. Stereotaxic thalamotomy (lamella medialis) in aggressive psychiatric patients. Confinia Neurologica 1970;32(2):326–31. PubMed PMID: 4993816. 62. Chitanondh H. Stereotaxic amygdalotomy in the treatment of olfactory seizures and psychiatric disorders with olfactory hallucination. Confinia Neurologica 1966;27(1):181–96. PubMed PMID: 5334010, Epub 1966/01/01. 63. Wycis HT, Baird 3rd HW, Spiegel EA. Long range results following pallidotomy and pallidoamygdalotomy in certain types of convulsive disorders. Confinia Neurologica 1966;27(1):114–20. PubMed PMID: 4959509. 64. Mullan S, Vailati G, Karasick J, Mailis M. Thalamic lesions for the control of epilepsy. A study of nine cases. Archives of Neurology 1967;16(3):277–85. PubMed PMID: 4959933. 65. Sonnen AE, Manen JV, van Dijk B. Results of amygdalotomy and fornicotomy in temporal lobe epilepsy and behaviour disorders. Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien) 1976;(23 Suppl):215–9. PubMed PMID: 793314, Epub 1976/01/01. 66. Narabayashi H. Lessons from amygdaloid surgery in long-term observation. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):241–5. PubMed PMID: 998343. 67. Gillingham FJ, Watson WS, Donaldson AA, Cairns VM. Stereotactic lesions for the control of intractable epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):263– 9. PubMed PMID: 793319. 68. Yoshii N. Follow-up study of epileptic patients following forel-H-tomy. Applied Neurophysiology 1977;40(1):1–12. PubMed PMID: 96739. 69. Ramani SV, Yap JC, Gumnit RJ. Stereotactic fields of Forel interruption for intractable epilepsy. Applied Neurophysiology 1980;43(3–5):104–8. PubMed PMID: 7027928. 70. Hood TW, Siegfried J, Wieser HG. The role of stereotactic amygdalotomy in the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy associated with behavioral disorders. Applied Neurophysiology 1983;46(1–4):19–25. PubMed PMID: 6422845, Epub 1983/01/01. 71. Pendl G, Grunert P, Graf M, Czech T. Surgical treatment of epilepsy. Neurochirurgia 1990;33(Suppl 1):27–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1053592. PubMed PMID: 2127301. 72. Kuzniecky RI, Guthrie BL. Stereotactic surgical approach to hypothalamic hamartomas. Epileptic Disorders International Epilepsy Journal with Videotape 2003;5(4):275–80. PubMed PMID: 14975797. 73. Hori Y, Terada C, Kanazawa K, Miyamoto S. The effect of stereotaxic putamectomy for epileptic seizures. Neurologica Medico-Chirurgica (Tokyo) 1968;10: 321–3. 74. Jelsma RK, Bertrand CM, Martinez SN, Molina-Negro P. Stereotaxic treatment of frontal-lobe and centrencephalic epilepsy. Journal of Neurosurgery 1973;39(1): 42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/jns.1973.39.1.0042. PubMed PMID: 4197832. 75. Yang WD, Yu Q, Zhang JN, Shen CH, Wang FL, Cui LY, et al. Stereotactic combined amygdala and hippocampus lesions for treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2005;43(9):616–9. PubMed PMID: 15938940, Epub 2005/06/09. 76. Schumann G, Nadvornik P, Schro¨der T. Ergebnisse der stereotaktischen behandlung der pharmakoresistenten epilepsie. Psychiatrie, Neurologie, und medizinische Psychologie 1987;39(1):38–43. PubMed PMID: 3295918, Epub 1987/01/ 01. 77. Guenot M, Isnard J, Ryvlin P, Fischer C, Mauguiere F, Sindou M. SEEG-guided RF thermocoagulation of epileptic foci: feasibility, safety, and preliminary results. Epilepsia 2004;45(11):1368–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004. 17704.x. PubMed PMID: 15509237.
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Seizure journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yseiz
Review
A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy James W. Leiphart a,b,c,d,*, Richard M. Young c, Donald C. Shields c a
Department of Neurosciences, Inova Medical System, Falls Church, VA, USA Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA c Department of Neurological Surgery, George Washington University Medical School, Washington, DC, USA d Department of Anatomy and Regenerative Biology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 5 June 2013 Received in revised form 7 September 2013 Accepted 12 October 2013
Purpose: Most deep brain stimulation targets for movement disorders were derived from effective ablative surgery targets. Similarly effective lesion targets for epilepsy control may help refine brain stimulation targeting for epilepsy. A literature review of past stereotactic lesions for epilepsy treatment was performed to provide historical context and possible anatomical guidance for current and future attempts at controlling epilepsy with electrical stimulation. This work was undertaken to provide insights for electrical stimulation targets in epilepsy treatment based on outcomes from previous ablative therapies. Methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies with the words ‘‘stereotactic surgery’’ and ‘‘epilepsy.’’ Post-operative results for 619 patients with stereotactic brain lesions targeting various anatomical foci were standardized using a modified Engel scale (1 ‘free of seizures’ to 3 ‘no significant improvement’). Each individual patient was entered into a database as a unique data point. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in reported seizure control among the different procedures and seizure types. The procedures that produced the best seizure control outcomes were the hippocampectomy, pallido-amygdalotomy, and amygdalohippocampectomy. Simple partial motor and combined generalized tonic clonic with complex partial seizure types demonstrated the best outcomes following surgery; complex partial and generalized tonic had the worst outcomes. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate the location of brain lesions has a significant effect on seizure control. Thus, future research designed to optimize brain stimulation targets for epilepsy control may be informed by previous ablative outcomes. ß 2013 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stereotactic Surgery Epilepsy surgery Literature review Lesionectomy Seizure
1. Introduction Epilepsy affects 4–8 out of 1000 people worldwide,1 and is characterized by recurrent seizures. Trauma is one of the two leading causes of epilepsy in the adult population younger than 65 years of age.2 Twenty to 30% of patients with epilepsy are not adequately controlled with medications,3 and only one-third of these patients are candidates for traditional surgical resections leaving a significant portion of this population with persistent seizures.4 Even among the paucity of patients in the United States with evaluations at Epilepsy Centers of Excellence,5 many are not candidates for surgical resection because: they present with a seizure focus that cannot be removed without causing significant disability, they have more than one focus of seizure activity, or they
do not have an identifiable seizure focus. Thus, strategies to electrically stimulate the brain are being developed as potential therapies to control intractable seizures.6–15 Stimulation strategies for the control of epilepsy vary widely, and multiple brain regions have been targeted with devices similar to those used for the treatment of movement disorders. Initial stimulation targets in patients with movement disorders were developed in light of prior experience with stereotactic lesions. In a similar way, clinical outcomes following stereotactic lesions in patients with epilepsy may help refine brain stimulation in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. To this end, we have performed a systematic review of stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy to evaluate the efficacy of each target lesion. 2. Methods
* Corresponding author at: Inova Department of Neurosciences, 3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA. Tel.: +1 703 776 8310; fax: +1 703 776 4018. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Leiphart).
A PubMed search was conducted using the words ‘‘epilepsy,’’ ‘‘surgery,’’ and ‘‘stereotactic.’’ Searches were limited to include only human subjects, and no date boundaries were set. Studies
1059-1311/$ – see front matter ß 2013 British Epilepsy Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
2
from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th World Congresses of Psychiatric Surgery were also included. This search returned 391 articles initially considered for this literature review, with dates ranging from 1965 to 2005. Strict inclusion criteria for the studies were used. To be included, each study must have employed focallytargeted stereotactic surgeries with one or two anatomical targets, patients must have undergone objective pre- and post-operative evaluations by a physician, and each study must have included lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Moreover, only the longest patient follow-up data for each group of investigators was included, as some articles were written periodically on patients as they were followed for many years. Once these criteria had been met, our final dataset consisted of 619 patients treated with stereotactic lesions for epilepsy from 42 different studies. These 619 patients were then standardized according to a 3 point modified Engel scale based on post-operative physician evaluations. This scale ranged from 1 to 3, with 1 corresponding to a seizure free outcome, 2 indicating significant reduction in seizures, and 3 indicating minimal or no reduction in seizures. This scale was used as the dependent variable for analysis. Patients were divided into groups according to their ablative procedure. This resulted in 26 groups. Groups containing less than 5 patients were not analyzed due to their low statistical power. The remaining 16 procedure groups from 42 studies including 619 subjects with their distributions are shown in Table 1. A KruskalWallis test was performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the outcomes from the 16 different anatomical targets using StatView1. Not all of the studies had clinical information that allowed for classification of seizure type. The studies with seizure classification data were also compared by seizure type using a Kruskal-Wallis test. This included 241 subjects from 21 studies.
Table 1 Number of patients analyzed by region of stereotactic lesion surgery for epilepsy.36–77 Area of lesion
Number of patients
Amygdalohippocampectomy Amygdalotomy Capsulotomy Cingulotomy Cortical Lesionectomy Dentatolysis Forelotomy Fornico-amygdalotomy Fornicotomy Fornicotomy with commisurotomy Hippocampectomy Hypothalotomy Pallido-amygdalotomy Pallidotomy Putaminectomy Thalamotomy
78 169 16 9 38 8 96 33 55 33 10 24 7 5 24 14
There was also a statistically significant difference in seizure control outcomes for different seizure types (p = 0.0018, Fig. 2). Patients with simple partial motor and those with combined generalized tonic–clonic with complex partial seizures demonstrated the best outcomes. Complex partial and generalized tonic types showed the worst outcomes. Table 2 shows the average seizure control outcome using the modified Engel scale for each lesion location by seizure type in patients with this data available. The low number of patients and missing data in several categories made meaningful statistical analysis impossible. 4. Discussion
3. Results The Kruskal-Wallis analysis determined that there was a statistically significant difference in seizure control outcomes among the different procedures shown in Fig. 1 (p = 0.026). The hippocampectomy (modified Engel scale: 1.4), pallido-amygdalotomy (1.71), and amygdalohippocampectomy (1.77) procedures resulted in the best seizure control outcomes. However, outcomes were poorest in patients undergoing cingulotomies (2.55), dentatolysis (2.36) and putamenectomies (2.13).
Brain stimulation techniques for the control of epilepsy7,16–20 include two basic approaches. In one approach a specific target, typically a nucleus or region of the cortex, is stimulated in an effort to reduce seizure frequency via effects through the entire brain.20 This method is advantageous since it can be utilized in patients who do not have a localized seizure focus. In the other approach, the identified seizure focus or foci are directly stimulated in an effort to disrupt seizures at their source.19 Although this requires an identified seizure focus, the advantage of this approach is that
Fig. 1. Average post-operative seizure control outcomes by target region for stereotactic lesion epilepsy surgeries. Modified Engel scale: (1) representing seizure freedom, (2) significant reduction in seizures, and (3) no significant reduction in seizures.
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
3
Fig. 2. Average post-operative seizure control outcomes by seizure type for stereotactic lesion epilepsy surgeries. Modified Engel scale: (1) representing seizure freedom, (2) significant reduction in seizures, and (3) no significant reduction in seizures.
the stimulation can be performed in a responsive manner if electrophysiological evidence of seizure onset can be identified. Unlike the first approach, which requires continuous or pulsed stimulation, responsive stimulation has the potential to require less overall device output, and therefore a smaller battery source. Both methods have included stimulation parameters similar to those utilized in deep brain stimulation for movement disorders.8,14 Both methods have been utilized in an attempt to control seizures of various types originating from a variety of locations.19,20 Although the mechanisms by which deep brain stimulation modulates movement disorders are incompletely understood, many investigators believe that it acts by inhibiting or blocking the stimulated brain region, similar to the effects of stereotactic lesions.21,22 Non-seizure focus stimulation has been applied to various regions of the brain including the subthalamic nucleus,8,10 hippocampus,12,23,24 anterior thalamus,9,25 centromedian thalamus,11,25 cerebellum,26–28 and caudate.29 Attempts to stimulate the seizure focus/foci have also utilized several different targets, including the hippocampus and various cortical regions.6,7 In addition to findings from the above studies, historical lesion experience in seizure control may help guide the choice of stimulation targets. Stereotactic lesion surgery has the advantages of lower cost and elimination of the need for permanently implanted device which is at risk of infection, breakage, malfunction and would necessarily require a reoperation at some point for replacement of the electrical generator. The advantages of implanting a stimulator over producing a stereotactic lesion are the reversibility and adaptability of the therapy. Except for the subthalamic nucleus, lesion targets analyzed in the present study were similar to the various targets utilized in stimulation studies. These included lesions of the hippocampus,
thalamus, and cerebellum. In addition, many other regions were lesioned in the analyzed studies, suggesting the possibility of other potential targets. Not surprisingly, hippocampal lesions produced the best seizure reduction outcomes. This procedure is essentially a hippocampectomy utilizing a minimally invasive stereotactic approach. Open anterior temporal lobectomy with hippocampectomy has been extensively studied, and has demonstrated the best seizure control outcomes among all epilepsy surgery procedures.30–32 Moreover, hypothalotomy patients demonstrated good seizure control outcomes, as this procedure was performed exclusively for the treatment of hypothalamic hamartomas. Likewise, lesional epilepsy surgeries tended to have better outcomes than non-lesional surgeries. Of interest, the amygdala was not targeted for stimulation, although the amygdalotomy resulted in better seizure control outcomes when utilized in combination with lesions at other sites like the amygdalohippocampectomy, the fornico-amygdalotomy, and the pallodo-amygdalotomy. Nonetheless, amygdalotomy alone did not produce clinically significant seizure control outcomes. Thalamotomy and cortical lesionectomy procedures demonstrated favorable seizure control outcomes – providing further justification for their use as targets in the larger clinical studies of brain stimulation for epilepsy.6,7,16–18 Of note, one procedure that had surprisingly good seizure control outcomes was the forelotomy. The fields of Forel have not been stimulated for attempted seizure control, but this region may deserve consideration in future studies. The closest analogous procedure to cerebellum stimulation would be the dentatolysis, which had poor seizure control outcomes. Many of the studies reviewed had sufficient detail to draw conclusions concerning seizure control outcomes from stereotactic lesions. Patients showing the greatest reduction in seizures were those that had simple partial motor seizures. This was unexpected
Table 2 Table of average post-operative seizure control outcomes by seizure type and target region for stereotactic lesion epilepsy surgeries. Modified Engel scale: (1) representing seizure freedom, (2) significant reduction in seizures, and (3) no significant reduction in seizures. The number within the parentheses is the number of patients in each group. CP: complex partial; GT: generalized tonic; GTC: generalized tonic clonic; SP: simple partial. CP
GT
Amygdalohippocampectomy Amygdalotomy Capsulotomy Cortical lesionectomy Dentatolysis Forelotomy Fornico-amygdalotomy Fornicotomy Hypothalotomy
1.7 2.1 – – – 3.0 2.1 2.2 –
(23) (18)
(11) (7) (12)
GTC
GTC/CP
SP
Motor
SP Psychic
– – 1.5 (4) – – 2.2 (11) – – –
– 1.5 2.2 – 2.0 1.4 – 1.9 –
– 1.0 (2) – 1.0 (2) – 2.3 (3) – –
– – – 1.0 (4) 2.7 (3) 1.3 (20) – – –
– 1.0 (1) – – – – – – 1.8 (12)
(13) (11) (4) (32) (42)
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
4
for two reasons. First, in previous epilepsy surgery series, simple partial seizures did not have the best post-operative outcomes.33 Second, the stereotactic lesion surgeries that demonstrated the best outcomes were those that had hippocampectomies. Complex partial seizures are associated with hippocampal onset, so complex partial seizures would be expected to have the best outcomes.34 This may be due to inconsistent reporting of seizure types among the various studies. Only 39% of the patients with reported outcome data had reliable information to determine seizure type. Combined generalized tonic clonic and complex partial seizures had the next best outcomes. These cases probably represented complex partial seizures with secondary generalization. These good outcomes agree with epilepsy surgery studies that showed the best outcomes with complex partial seizures.35 Complex partial seizures alone had the worst post-operative outcomes from stereotactic lesion surgeries. Again, this surprising result calls into question the determination of seizure type in these studies. 5. Conclusions This study was designed to review potentially useful historical data concerning seizure control outcomes from stereotactic brain lesions. Lesions involving the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, and cortical foci showed the best seizure reduction outcomes. This corresponds with targets currently used in brain stimulation for epilepsy control. Seizure types that responded best to stereotactic lesioning were simple partial seizures and combined generalized tonic clonic/complex partial seizures. These findings may help optimize the selection of targets and patients appropriate for stimulation epilepsy surgery.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Conflicts of interest statement 21.
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
22.
23.
References 24. 1. Hauser WA. Incidence and prevalence. In: Engel Jr J, Pedley TA, editors. Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997 . 2. Hauser WA, Annegers JF, Rocca WA. Descriptive epidemiology of epilepsy: contributions of population-based studies from Rochester, Minnesota. Mayo Clinic proceedings, vol. 71, no. 6. 1996:576–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0025-6196(11)64115-3. PubMed PMID: 8642887. 3. Sander JWAS, Sillanpa¨a¨ M. Natural history and prognosis. In: Engel Jr J, Pedley TA, editors. Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. 4. Engel Jr J, Shewmon DA. Who should be considered a surgical candidate. In: Engel Jr J, editor. Surgical treatment of the epilepsies. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: LippincottRaven; 1996. 5. The National Association of Epilepsy C, Gumnit RJ, Walczak TS. Guidelines for essential services, personnel, and facilities in specialized epilepsy centers in the United States. Epilepsia 2001;42(6):804–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.15281157.2001.08701.x. 6. Fountas KN, Smith JR. A novel closed-loop stimulation system in the control of focal, medically refractory epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement 2007;97(Pt 2):357–62. PubMed PMID: 17691324. 7. Fountas KN, Smith JR, Murro AM, Politsky J, Park YD, Jenkins PD. Implantation of a closed-loop stimulation in the management of medically refractory focal epilepsy: a technical note. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 2005;83(4):153–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000088656. PubMed PMID: 16205108. 8. Handforth A, DeSalles AA, Krahl SE. Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus as adjunct treatment for refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia 2006;47(7): 1239–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00563.x. PubMed PMID: 16886990. 9. Osorio I, Overman J, Giftakis J, Wilkinson SB. High frequency thalamic stimulation for inoperable mesial temporal epilepsy. Epilepsia 2007;48(8):1561–71. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01044.x. PubMed PMID: 17386053. 10. Shon YM, Lee KJ, Kim HJ, Chung YA, Ahn KJ, Kim YI, et al. Effect of chronic deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus for frontal lobe epilepsy: subtraction SPECT analysis. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
2005;83(2–3):84–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000086867. PubMed PMID: 16006780. Velasco AL, Velasco F, Jimenez F, Velasco M, Castro G, Carrillo-Ruiz JD, et al. Neuromodulation of the centromedian thalamic nuclei in the treatment of generalized seizures and the improvement of the quality of life in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Epilepsia 2006;47(7):1203–12. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00593.x. PubMed PMID: 16886984. Velasco AL, Velasco F, Velasco M, Jimenez F, Carrillo-Ruiz JD, Castro G. The role of neuromodulation of the hippocampus in the treatment of intractable complex partial seizures of the temporal lobe. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement 2007;97(Pt 2):329–32. PubMed PMID: 17691319. Halpern CH, Samadani U, Litt B, Jaggi JL, Baltuch GH. Deep brain stimulation for epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics the Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 2008;5(1):59–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nurt.2007.10. 065. PubMed PMID: 18164484; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2941772. Velasco F, Velasco AL, Velasco M, Jimenez F, Carrillo-Ruiz JD, Castro G. Deep brain stimulation for treatment of the epilepsies: the centromedian thalamic target. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement 2007;97(Pt 2):337–42. PubMed PMID: 17691321. Zumsteg D, Lozano AM, Wennberg RA. Rhythmic cortical EEG synchronization with low frequency stimulation of the anterior and medial thalamus for epilepsy. Clinical Neurophysiology 2006;117(10):2272–8. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.06.707. S1388-2457(06)00970-9 [pii], PubMed PMID: 16920020, Epub 2006/08/22. Hodaie M, Wennberg RA, Dostrovsky JO, Lozano AM. Chronic anterior thalamus stimulation for intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia 2002;43(6):603–8. PubMed PMID: 12060019. Kerrigan JF, Litt B, Fisher RS, Cranstoun S, French JA, Blum DE, et al. Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. Epilepsia 2004;45(4):346–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.0013-9580.2004.01304.x. PubMed PMID: 15030497. Sun FT, Morrell MJ, Wharen Jr RE. Responsive cortical stimulation for the treatment of epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics the Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 2008;5(1):68–74. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.nurt.2007.10.069. PubMed PMID: 18164485. Morrell MJ, Group RNSSiES. Responsive cortical stimulation for the treatment of medically intractable partial epilepsy. Neurology 2011;77(13):1295–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182302056. PubMed PMID: 21917777. Fisher R, Salanova V, Witt T, Worth R, Henry T, Gross R, et al. Electrical stimulation of the anterior nucleus of thalamus for treatment of refractory epilepsy. Epilepsia 2010;51(5):899–908. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15281167.2010.02536.x. PubMed PMID: 20331461, Epub 2010/03/25. Vitek JL. Deep brain stimulation: how does it work? Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2008;75(Suppl 2):S59–65. PubMed PMID: 18540149, Epub 2008/06/11. Perlmutter JS, Mink JW. Deep brain stimulation. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2006;29:229–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112824. PubMed PMID: 16776585, Epub 2006/06/17. Velasco M, Velasco F, Velasco AL, Boleaga B, Jimenez F, Brito F, et al. Subacute electrical stimulation of the hippocampus blocks intractable temporal lobe seizures and paroxysmal EEG activities. Epilepsia 2000;41(2):158–69. PubMed PMID: 10691112, Epub 2000/02/26. Boon P, Vonck K, De Herdt V, Van Dycke A, Goethals M, Goossens L, et al. Deep brain stimulation in patients with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2007;48(8):1551–60. PubMed PMID: 17726798. Andrade DM, Zumsteg D, Hamani C, Hodaie M, Sarkissian S, Lozano AM, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with thalamic deep brain stimulation for epilepsy. Neurology 2006;66(10):1571–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl. 0000206364.19772.39. 01.wnl.0000206364.19772.39 [pii], PubMed PMID: 16540602, Epub 2006/03/17. Wright GD, McLellan DL, Brice JG. A double-blind trial of chronic cerebellar stimulation in twelve patients with severe epilepsy. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 1984;47(8):769–74. PubMed PMID: 6381652; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1027936. Davis R, Emmonds SE. Cerebellar stimulation for seizure control: 17-year study. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 1992;58(1–4):200–8. PubMed PMID: 1439341. Chkhenkeli SA, Sramka M, Lortkipanidze GS, Rakviashvili TN, Bregvadze E, Magalashvili GE, et al. Electrophysiological effects and clinical results of direct brain stimulation for intractable epilepsy. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 2004;106(4):318–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2004.01.009. PubMed PMID: 15297008. Chkhenkeli SA, Chkhenkeli IS. Effects of therapeutic stimulation of nucleus caudatus on epileptic electrical activity of brain in patients with intractable epilepsy. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 1997;69(1–4 Pt 2):221–4. PubMed PMID: 9711758. Tellez-Zenteno JF, Dhar R, Wiebe S. Long-term seizure outcomes following epilepsy surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain a Journal of Neurology 2005;128(Pt 5):1188–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh449. PubMed PMID: 15758038. Spencer S, Huh L. Outcomes of epilepsy surgery in adults and children. Lancet Neurology 2008;7(6):525–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422 (08)70109-1. S1474-4422(08)70109-1 [pii], PubMed PMID: 18485316, Epub 2008/05/20. Spencer SS, Berg AT, Vickrey BG, Sperling MR, Bazil CW, Shinnar S, et al. Initial outcomes in the multicenter study of epilepsy surgery. Neurology 2003;61(12): 1680–5. PubMed PMID: 14694029.
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
G Model
YSEIZ-2229; No. of Pages 5 J.W. Leiphart et al. / Seizure xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 33. Spencer SS, Schramm J, Wyler A, O’Connor M, Orbach D, Krauss G, et al. Multiple subpial transection for intractable partial epilepsy: an international metaanalysis. Epilepsia 2002;43(2):141–5. PubMed PMID: 11903459, Epub 2002/ 03/21. 34. Spencer DD, Spencer SS, Mattson RH, Williamson PD, Novelly RA. Access to the posterior medial temporal lobe structures in the surgical treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurosurgery 1984;15(5):667–71. PubMed PMID: 6504282. 35. Spencer SS, Berg AT, Vickrey BG, Sperling MR, Bazil CW, Shinnar S, et al. Predicting long-term seizure outcome after resective epilepsy surgery: the multicenter study. Neurology 2005;65(6):912–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/ 01.wnl.0000176055.45774.71. PubMed PMID: 16186534. 36. Mingrino S, Schergna E. Stereotaxic anterior cingulotomy in the treatment of severe behavior disorders. In: Hitchcock E, Laitinen L, Vaernet K, editors. Psychosurgery: proceedings of the second international conference on psychsurgery held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas; 1972. p. 258–63. 37. Schulze-Bonhage A, Homberg V, Trippel M, Keimer R, Elger CE, Warnke PC, et al. Interstitial radiosurgery in the treatment of gelastic epilepsy due to hypothalamic hamartomas. Neurology 2004;62(4):644–7. PubMed PMID: 14981188. 38. Fujimoto Y, Kato A, Saitoh Y, Ninomiya H, Imai K, Sakakibara RI, et al. Stereotactic radiofrequency ablation for sessile hypothalamic hamartoma with an image fusion technique. Acta Neurochirurgica 2003;145(8):697–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-003-0077-3. PubMed PMID: 14520551, discussion -1. 39. Parrent AG, Blume WT. Stereotactic amygdalohippocampotomy for the treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 1999;40(10):1408–16. PubMed PMID: 10528937. 40. Kuzniecky R, Guthrie B, Mountz J, Bebin M, Faught E, Gilliam F, et al. Intrinsic epileptogenesis of hypothalamic hamartomas in gelastic epilepsy. Annals of Neurology 1997;42(1):60–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ana.410420111. PubMed PMID: 9225686. 41. Patil AA, Andrews R, Torkelson R. Stereotactic volumetric radiofrequency lesioning of intracranial structures for control of intractable seizures. Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery 1995;64(3):123–33. PubMed PMID: 8746501. 42. Narabayashi H, Mizutani T. Epileptic seizures and the stereotaxic amygdalotomy. Confinia Neurologica 1970;32(2):289–97. PubMed PMID: 4993814. 43. Schwab RS, Sweet WH, Mark VH, Kjellberg RN, Ervin FR. Treatment of intractable temporal lobe epilepsy by stereotactic amygdala lesions. Transactions of the American Neurological Association 1965;90:12–9. PubMed PMID: 5323371. 44. Vaernet K. Stereotaxic amygdalotomy in temporal lobe epilepsy. Confinia Neurologica 1972;34(2):176–80. PubMed PMID: 4579788, Epub 1972/01/01. 45. Nadvornik P, Sramka M, Gajdosova D, Kokavec M. Longitudinal hippocampectomy. A new stereotaxic approach to the gyrus hippocampi. Confinia Neurologica 1975;37(1–3):245–8. PubMed PMID: 805687. 46. Talairach J, Szikla G. Destruction partielle amygdalo-hippocampique par l’yttrium 90 dans le traitement de certaines e´pilepsies a` expression rhinence´phalique. Neurochirurgie 1965;11(3):233–40. PubMed PMID: 5320688, Epub 1965/ 05/01. 47. Heimburger RF, Small IF, Small JG, Milstein V, Moore D. Stereotactic amygdalotomy for convulsive and behavioral disorders. Long-term follow-up study. Applied Neurophysiology 1978;41(1–4):43–51. PubMed PMID: 365101, Epub 1978/01/01. 48. Ramamurthi B. Stereotactic surgery in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology India 1970;18(Suppl 1):42–5. PubMed PMID: 4927531. 49. Fraioli B, Guidetti. Effects of stereotactic lesions of the dentate nucleus of the cerebellum in man. Applied Neurophysiology 1975;38(2):81–90. PubMed PMID: 769688. 50. Hullay J, Gombi R, Velok G. Surgical and stereotactic attempts in intractable epilepsy. Acta Medica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1976;33(2):119–24. PubMed PMID: 801222. 51. Jinnai D, Mukawa J, Kobayashi K. Forel-H-tomy for the treatment of intractable epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):159–65. PubMed PMID: 998341. 52. Barcia-Salorio JL, Broseta J. Stereotactic fornicotomy in temporal epilepsy: indications and long-term results. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):167– 75. PubMed PMID: 793308. 53. Mundinger F, Becker P, Groebner E, Bachschmid G. Late results of stereotactic surgery of epilepsy predominantly temporal lobetype. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):177–82. PubMed PMID: 826125. 54. Bouchard G. Basic targets and the different epilepsies. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):193–9. PubMed PMID: 793310.
5
55. Ganglberger JA. New possibilities of stereotactic treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):211–4. PubMed PMID: 793313, Epub 1976/01/01. 56. Parrent AG. Stereotactic radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of gelastic seizures associated with hypothalamic hamartoma. Case report. Journal of Neurosurgery 1999;91(5):881–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/jns.1999.91.5.0881. PubMed PMID: 10541251, Epub 1999/11/30. 57. Bouvier G, Saint-Hilaire JM, Maltais R, Belique R, Desrochers P. Stereotactic lesions in primary epilepsy of the limbic system. Acta Neurochirurgica Supplementum 1980;30:151–9. PubMed PMID: 7008517. 58. Sandok EK, Cascino GD. Surgical treatment for perirolandic lesional epilepsy. Epilepsia 1998;39(Suppl 4):S42–8. PubMed PMID: 9637592. 59. Kalanaraman S, Ramamurthi B. Stereotaxic surgery for generalised epilepsy. Neurology India 1970;18(Suppl 1):34–41. PubMed PMID: 4994422. 60. Nashold Jr BS, Flanigin Jr H, Wilson WP, Stewart B. Stereotactic evaluation of bitemporal epilepsy with electrodes and lesions. Confinia Neurologica 1973;35(2):94–100. PubMed PMID: 4575254. 61. Poblete M, Palestini M, Figueroa E, Gallardo R, Rojas J, Covarrubias MI, et al. Stereotaxic thalamotomy (lamella medialis) in aggressive psychiatric patients. Confinia Neurologica 1970;32(2):326–31. PubMed PMID: 4993816. 62. Chitanondh H. Stereotaxic amygdalotomy in the treatment of olfactory seizures and psychiatric disorders with olfactory hallucination. Confinia Neurologica 1966;27(1):181–96. PubMed PMID: 5334010, Epub 1966/01/01. 63. Wycis HT, Baird 3rd HW, Spiegel EA. Long range results following pallidotomy and pallidoamygdalotomy in certain types of convulsive disorders. Confinia Neurologica 1966;27(1):114–20. PubMed PMID: 4959509. 64. Mullan S, Vailati G, Karasick J, Mailis M. Thalamic lesions for the control of epilepsy. A study of nine cases. Archives of Neurology 1967;16(3):277–85. PubMed PMID: 4959933. 65. Sonnen AE, Manen JV, van Dijk B. Results of amygdalotomy and fornicotomy in temporal lobe epilepsy and behaviour disorders. Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien) 1976;(23 Suppl):215–9. PubMed PMID: 793314, Epub 1976/01/01. 66. Narabayashi H. Lessons from amygdaloid surgery in long-term observation. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):241–5. PubMed PMID: 998343. 67. Gillingham FJ, Watson WS, Donaldson AA, Cairns VM. Stereotactic lesions for the control of intractable epilepsy. Acta Neurochirurgica 1976;(23 Suppl):263– 9. PubMed PMID: 793319. 68. Yoshii N. Follow-up study of epileptic patients following forel-H-tomy. Applied Neurophysiology 1977;40(1):1–12. PubMed PMID: 96739. 69. Ramani SV, Yap JC, Gumnit RJ. Stereotactic fields of Forel interruption for intractable epilepsy. Applied Neurophysiology 1980;43(3–5):104–8. PubMed PMID: 7027928. 70. Hood TW, Siegfried J, Wieser HG. The role of stereotactic amygdalotomy in the treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy associated with behavioral disorders. Applied Neurophysiology 1983;46(1–4):19–25. PubMed PMID: 6422845, Epub 1983/01/01. 71. Pendl G, Grunert P, Graf M, Czech T. Surgical treatment of epilepsy. Neurochirurgia 1990;33(Suppl 1):27–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1053592. PubMed PMID: 2127301. 72. Kuzniecky RI, Guthrie BL. Stereotactic surgical approach to hypothalamic hamartomas. Epileptic Disorders International Epilepsy Journal with Videotape 2003;5(4):275–80. PubMed PMID: 14975797. 73. Hori Y, Terada C, Kanazawa K, Miyamoto S. The effect of stereotaxic putamectomy for epileptic seizures. Neurologica Medico-Chirurgica (Tokyo) 1968;10: 321–3. 74. Jelsma RK, Bertrand CM, Martinez SN, Molina-Negro P. Stereotaxic treatment of frontal-lobe and centrencephalic epilepsy. Journal of Neurosurgery 1973;39(1): 42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/jns.1973.39.1.0042. PubMed PMID: 4197832. 75. Yang WD, Yu Q, Zhang JN, Shen CH, Wang FL, Cui LY, et al. Stereotactic combined amygdala and hippocampus lesions for treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2005;43(9):616–9. PubMed PMID: 15938940, Epub 2005/06/09. 76. Schumann G, Nadvornik P, Schro¨der T. Ergebnisse der stereotaktischen behandlung der pharmakoresistenten epilepsie. Psychiatrie, Neurologie, und medizinische Psychologie 1987;39(1):38–43. PubMed PMID: 3295918, Epub 1987/01/ 01. 77. Guenot M, Isnard J, Ryvlin P, Fischer C, Mauguiere F, Sindou M. SEEG-guided RF thermocoagulation of epileptic foci: feasibility, safety, and preliminary results. Epilepsia 2004;45(11):1368–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004. 17704.x. PubMed PMID: 15509237.
Please cite this article in press as: Leiphart JW, et al. A historical perspective: Stereotactic lesions for the treatment of epilepsy. Seizure: Eur J Epilepsy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2013.10.006
