Bethel Epilepsy Centre, Mara Hospital, Bielefeld, Germany.
Epilepsy Behav. 2009 Nov;16(3):547-50. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.09.012. Epub 2009 Oct 22.
In the absence of evidence-based regulations on the driving ability of patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES), we asked 41 German epileptologists via e-mail for their recommendations on driving with PNES. This survey was modeled on an earlier study by Benbadis et al. in the United States and was compared with it. Thirty-four (82.9%) epileptologists responded. Three responses were possible: (A) same restrictions as stipulated for patients with epilepsy, answered by 11 epileptologists (32.4%); (B) no restrictions at all, which no German expert gave as an answer (0%); (C) decision on an individual basis, answered by 23 experts (67.6%). The divergent approaches reflect the poor data on motor vehicle accidents of patients with PNES and the great variability of PNES with respect to semiology, psychiatric morbidity, and prognosis. In the study by Benbadis et al., 49% chose A, 32% B, and 19% C. The considerable national differences may be explained by differences between the two countries with respect to driving regulations and cultural aspects.
由于缺乏针对心因性非癫痫性发作(PNES)患者驾驶能力的循证法规,我们通过电子邮件向 41 位德国癫痫专家询问了他们对 PNES 驾驶的建议。这项调查是基于 Benbadis 等人在美国进行的早期研究进行的,并与该研究进行了比较。34 位(82.9%)癫痫专家做出了回应。有三种可能的回答:(A)与癫痫患者规定的相同限制,11 位癫痫专家(32.4%)做出了回答;(B)完全没有限制,没有德国专家给出这样的回答(0%);(C)根据个人情况决定,23 位专家(67.6%)做出了回答。不同的方法反映了 PNES 患者与机动车事故相关的数据不足,以及 PNES 在症状学、精神发病率和预后方面的极大变异性。在 Benbadis 等人的研究中,49%的人选择了 A,32%的人选择了 B,19%的人选择了 C。这种相当大的国家差异可能是由于两国在驾驶法规和文化方面的差异造成的。