Shibasaki Hiroshi, Ikeda Akio, Nagamine Takashi
Department of Neurology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Jul;118(7):1438-48. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.03.002. Epub 2007 Apr 23.
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is used twofold for presurgical evaluation of patients with medically intractable partial epilepsy; to identify epileptogenic focus and to investigate functions of cortical areas at or near the epileptogenic focus or structural lesion. For the precise localization of the current source of epileptic discharge, the question as to whether MEG is superior to electroencephalography (EEG) is often addressed. To answer this question, so many factors, both biologically and technically related, have to be taken into consideration. The biological factors include the magnitude of epileptic discharge, its distribution over the cortex, depth of its source from the head surface, and the proportion of large pyramidal neurons tangentially oriented with respect to the head surface within the cortical area. The technical factors include the quality of the recording instrument such as the number of sensors and the use of gradiometer vs. magnetometer, the employed method of source analysis, and availability of experts in each institute. As far as the importance of ictal recording is emphasized, long-term video/EEG monitoring is of utmost importance. Thus, it is concluded that, once the epileptogenic focus is identified by the video/EEG monitoring, then MEG is superior to EEG in order to precisely localize the current source of the interictal epileptic discharge. Another question often addressed is whether MEG can replace the invasive intracranial EEG recording or not. In addition to the above-described factors, different coverage of the cortical areas by MEG vs. invasive intracranial EEG recording has to be taken into account to explain some of the recent reports related to this question. MEG can be effectively applied to the investigation of cortical functions near the epileptogenic focus. It is especially so when combined with other non-invasive studies like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In addition to the source analysis of magnetic fields related to various events or tasks, analysis of the task-related change of rhythmic cortical oscillations is a useful tool for studying higher cortical functions such as language in the presurgical evaluation.
脑磁图(MEG)在药物治疗无效的部分性癫痫患者的术前评估中有两方面用途:确定致痫灶以及研究致痫灶或结构性病变处或其附近皮质区域的功能。为了精确确定癫痫放电电流源的位置,人们常常会探讨MEG是否优于脑电图(EEG)这一问题。要回答这个问题,必须考虑许多生物学和技术方面的因素。生物学因素包括癫痫放电的强度、其在皮质上的分布、其源头距头部表面的深度以及皮质区域内相对于头部表面呈切线方向排列的大型锥体神经元的比例。技术因素包括记录仪器的质量,如传感器的数量以及梯度计与磁力计的使用、所采用的源分析方法以及各机构专家的可得性。就强调发作期记录的重要性而言,长期视频/EEG监测至关重要。因此,可以得出结论,一旦通过视频/EEG监测确定了致痫灶,那么在精确确定发作间期癫痫放电的电流源位置方面,MEG优于EEG。另一个经常被探讨的问题是MEG是否能够取代有创性颅内EEG记录。除了上述因素外,还必须考虑MEG与有创性颅内EEG记录对皮质区域的不同覆盖范围,以解释最近一些与此问题相关的报告。MEG可有效地应用于致痫灶附近皮质功能的研究。当与功能磁共振成像(fMRI)等其他非侵入性研究相结合时尤其如此。除了对与各种事件或任务相关的磁场进行源分析外,分析与任务相关的节律性皮质振荡变化是术前评估中研究诸如语言等高级皮质功能的有用工具。