Kokkinos Vasileios, Cunningham Elizabeth M, Nathan Cody L, Ghandour Dina, Kisinger Morgan, Beestrum Molly, Madkins Krystal, Schuele Stephan U
Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Department of Neurology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Epileptic Disord. 2025 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/epd2.70004.
We performed a systematic review of the localization value of ictal mimic automatisms-including gelastic, dacrystic, fearful, ritualistic, and kissing semiology-in focal epilepsy. We performed a comprehensive literature search (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus) for patient-level studies, following a PRISMA and QUADAS2 approach. Patients with focal epilepsy displaying mimic automatism, defined as "stereotyped mimicry or behavior that resembles the usual way one expresses oneself to reflect an affect and that is not accompanied by the corresponding emotion" were included. Patients with subjective emotional experiences during a seizure, which the patient is aware of, were excluded. Analysis included 936 patients from 104 studies. Gelastic semiology was primarily associated with hypothalamic hamartomas (HH), and secondarily with frontal (cingulate; superior frontal gyrus), temporal (hippocampus; amygdala; pole; parahippocampal and fusiform gyri), insular, and orbitofrontal involvement, without consistent hemispheric lateralization. Dacrystic semiology was associated with HH, as well as temporal lobe seizure onset (mesial and anterior), followed by the less frequent involvement of orbitofrontal (anterior; baso-lateral), insular, and frontal regions; also without consistent hemispheric lateralization. Fearful ictal semiology was equally associated with frontal (cingulate; superior frontal gyrus), orbitofrontal (mesial; posterior), and temporal (hippocampus; amygdala) involvement; most often, but not exclusively, of right hemispheric lateralization. Ritualistic behavior was associated with the temporal lobe origin (hippocampus; amygdala; pole), with strong right hemispheric lateralization. Kissing ictal behavior was associated with temporal lobe origin (pole; hippocampus; amygdala), and secondarily with the frontal lobe (cingulate); most often, but not exclusively, of right hemispheric lateralization. Our systematic review-derived localization of the various manifestations of mimic automatisms supports anatomo-clinical correlations and helps guide interpretation of ictal semiology within the framework of pre-surgical evaluation in focal epilepsies.
我们对发作期模仿自动症(包括痴笑性、哭泣性、恐惧性、仪式性和亲吻样发作表现)在局灶性癫痫中的定位价值进行了系统评价。我们按照PRISMA和QUADAS2方法,对患者水平的研究进行了全面的文献检索(Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane、Scopus)。纳入了表现出模仿自动症的局灶性癫痫患者,模仿自动症定义为“刻板的模仿或行为,类似于人们通常表达情感的方式,但不伴有相应的情感”。排除发作期间有主观情感体验且患者意识到的患者。分析纳入了来自104项研究的936例患者。痴笑性发作表现主要与下丘脑错构瘤(HH)相关,其次与额叶(扣带回;额上回)、颞叶(海马体;杏仁核;颞极;海马旁回和梭状回)、岛叶和眶额区受累有关,无一致的半球侧化。哭泣性发作表现与HH以及颞叶发作起始(内侧和前部)相关,其次是眶额区(前部;基底外侧)、岛叶和额叶较少受累;同样无一致的半球侧化。恐惧性发作期表现同样与额叶(扣带回;额上回)、眶额区(内侧;后部)和颞叶(海马体;杏仁核)受累有关;最常见但并非仅见于右侧半球侧化。仪式性行为与颞叶起源(海马体;杏仁核;颞极)相关,有强烈右侧半球侧化。亲吻样发作行为与颞叶起源(颞极;海马体;杏仁核)相关,其次与额叶(扣带回)相关;最常见但并非仅见于右侧半球侧化。我们通过系统评价得出的模仿自动症各种表现的定位结果支持了解剖学与临床的相关性,并有助于在局灶性癫痫术前评估框架内指导发作期表现的解读。