Neurosciences Offices, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Epilepsia. 2012 Mar;53(3):399-404. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03381.x. Epub 2012 Jan 13.
This critical review refers to the new report on terminology and concepts for the organization of epilepsies by the Commission of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE). It is unfortunate that most of the proposals in the Commission's report are modified interpretations and nomenclature of previous ILAE classifications; new terms are not better than the old ones, and recent advances have not been incorporated. Hence, the new ILAE report met with considerable dissatisfaction from several expert epileptologists. The Commission abandoned (1) the disease-syndrome distinction, although "disease" is generally differentiated from "syndrome" in most medical texts as well as in the ILAE classification itself; (2) the distinction of "generalized" and "focal" for epileptic syndromes, despite maintaining this distinction for epileptic seizures and despite the fact that most epileptic syndromes manifest exclusively either with generalized or focal epileptic seizures; (4) the terms "idiopathic,""symptomatic," and "cryptogenic," although these terms have been well defined in the previous ILAE classifications; reiterating their true meaning would be sufficient. Genetic epilepsy could be a new category and (5) the designation of "benign" epilepsies, despite the recommendations of experts at the Monreale workshop. In addition, the Commission proposed that "age at onset" be used as a primary dimension for organizing the epilepsies. However, (a) this runs counter to classification efforts of other diseases in medicine and neurology; (b) syndromes that are likely to be linked together on the basis of electroclinical (and often genetic) evidence are now separated and intermixed with a number of heterogeneous epilepsies; and (c) a considerable number of epileptic syndromes have a wide range of age at onset from childhood to adulthood. Furthermore, epilepsy syndromes were given by name only, without definition; thus we remain dependent on previous ILAE definitions, which are often broad and imprecise. The ILAE should commission consensus of opinion from experts in specific fields in order to define each syndrome. Areas of certainties and uncertainties and of agreements and disagreements should be identified and explained. This approach may be the only way toward achieving a scientifically sound and clinically meaningful organizational system for the epileptic seizures and the epilepsies-a process that would incorporate the tremendous advances in our field and would be accepted by the wider community of clinicians and scientists.
这篇评论文章主要是针对国际抗癫痫联盟(ILAE)委员会发布的新术语和癫痫分类报告。不幸的是,委员会报告中的大多数建议都是对以前 ILAE 分类的修改和解释;新术语并没有比旧术语更好,也没有纳入最近的进展。因此,新的 ILAE 报告遭到了一些专家癫痫学家的强烈不满。委员会放弃了:(1)疾病-综合征的区分,尽管在大多数医学文本以及 ILAE 分类本身中,“疾病”通常与“综合征”区分开来;(2)癫痫综合征的“全面性”和“局灶性”区分,尽管对癫痫发作保留了这种区分,而且大多数癫痫综合征仅表现为全面性或局灶性癫痫发作;(4)术语“特发性”、“症状性”和“隐源性”,尽管这些术语在以前的 ILAE 分类中已经有了明确的定义;重申其真正含义就足够了。遗传性癫痫可以是一个新的类别;(5)尽管在 Monreale 研讨会的专家建议下,“良性”癫痫的指定。此外,委员会提议将“发病年龄”作为组织癫痫的主要维度。然而,(a)这与医学和神经病学中其他疾病的分类工作相悖;(b)基于电临床(通常是遗传)证据而可能联系在一起的综合征现在被分开并与许多异质性癫痫混合在一起;(c)相当数量的癫痫综合征发病年龄从儿童到成年期范围很广。此外,癫痫综合征仅给出名称,而没有定义;因此,我们仍然依赖于以前的 ILAE 定义,这些定义往往很广泛且不精确。ILAE 应该委托特定领域的专家达成共识,以定义每个综合征。应该确定和解释确定性和不确定性领域、协议和分歧领域。这种方法可能是实现癫痫发作和癫痫的科学合理和具有临床意义的组织系统的唯一途径——这一过程将纳入我们领域的巨大进展,并将得到更广泛的临床医生和科学家社区的认可。