Department of Neurosurgery, Division of Epilepsy and Electroencephalography, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
J Neurosurg. 2010 Jul;113(1):32-8. doi: 10.3171/2009.12.JNS091073.
Intracranial monitoring for temporal lobe seizure localization to differentiate neocortical from mesial temporal onset seizures requires both neocortical subdural grids and hippocampal depth electrode implantation. There are 2 basic techniques for hippocampal depth electrode implantation. This first technique uses a stereotactically guided 8-contact depth electrode directed along the long axis of the hippocampus to the amygdala via an occipital bur hole. The second technique involves direct placement of 2 or 3 4-contact depth electrodes perpendicular to the temporal lobe through the middle temporal gyrus and overlying subdural grid. The purpose of this study was to determine whether one technique was superior to the other by examining monitoring success and complications.
Between 1997 and 2005, 41 patients underwent invasive seizure monitoring with both temporal subdural grids and depth electrodes placed in 2 ways. Patients in Group A underwent the first technique, and patients in Group B underwent the second technique.
Group A consisted of 26 patients and Group B 15 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between Groups A and B regarding demographics, monitoring duration, seizure localization, or outcome (Engel classification). There was a statistically significant difference at the point in time at which these techniques were used: Group A represented more patients earlier in the series than Group B (p < 0.05). The complication rate attributable to the grids and depth electrodes was 0% in each group. It was more likely that the depth electrodes were placed through the grid if there was a prior resection and the patient was undergoing a new evaluation (p < 0.05). Furthermore, Group A procedures took significantly longer than Group B procedures.
In this patient series, there was no difference in efficacy of monitoring, complications, or outcome between hippocampal depth electrodes placed laterally through temporal grids or using an occipital bur hole stereotactic approach. Placement of the depth electrodes perpendicularly through the grids and middle temporal gyrus is technically more practical because multiple head positions and redraping are unnecessary, resulting in shorter operative times with comparable results.
为了对颞叶癫痫进行定位以区分新皮质起源和内侧颞叶起源,颅内监测需要使用皮质下脑沟和海马立体定向深部电极。海马立体定向深部电极植入有 2 种基本技术。第一种技术是使用立体定向引导的 8 触点深部电极,通过枕骨钻孔沿海马长轴方向进入杏仁核。第二种技术是通过中颞叶和覆盖的皮质下脑沟直接放置 2 或 3 个 4 触点深部电极,使其与颞叶垂直。本研究的目的是通过检查监测成功率和并发症来确定这两种技术中哪一种更具优势。
1997 年至 2005 年间,41 例患者接受了有颞叶皮质下脑沟和深部电极的侵袭性癫痫监测,采用了 2 种方法。A 组患者接受了第一种技术,B 组患者接受了第二种技术。
A 组患者有 26 例,B 组患者有 15 例。两组患者在人口统计学特征、监测时间、癫痫定位或结果(Engel 分类)方面无统计学差异。这两种技术的使用时间存在统计学差异:A 组患者在研究系列中比 B 组患者更早(p < 0.05)。两组患者的网格和深部电极的并发症发生率均为 0%。如果患者之前进行过切除手术并且正在接受新的评估,则更有可能通过网格放置深部电极(p < 0.05)。此外,A 组的手术时间明显长于 B 组。
在本患者系列中,通过颞叶网格外侧放置或使用枕骨钻孔立体定向方法放置的海马立体定向深部电极在监测效果、并发症或结果方面没有差异。通过网格和中颞叶垂直放置深部电极在技术上更实用,因为不需要多次改变头位和重新包扎,从而缩短了手术时间,且结果相当。