Other formats:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@article{1305920,
author = {Ryzí, Michal and Brázdil, Milan and Novák, Zdeněk and Hemza, Jan and Chrastina, Jan and Ošlejšková, Hana and Rektor, Ivan and Kuba, Robert},
article_location = {Amsterdam},
article_number = {February},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2014.11.011},
keywords = {Epilepsy surgery; Failure; Reoperation; Vagus nerve stimulation; Treatment options},
language = {eng},
issn = {0920-1211},
journal = {Epilepsy Research},
title = {Long-term outcomes in patients after epilepsy surgery failure},
volume = {110},
year = {2015}
}
TY - JOUR
ID - 1305920
AU - Ryzí, Michal - Brázdil, Milan - Novák, Zdeněk - Hemza, Jan - Chrastina, Jan - Ošlejšková, Hana - Rektor, Ivan - Kuba, Robert
PY - 2015
TI - Long-term outcomes in patients after epilepsy surgery failure
JF - Epilepsy Research
VL - 110
IS - February
SP - 71-77
EP - 71-77
PB - Elsevier Science
SN - 09201211
KW - Epilepsy surgery
KW - Failure
KW - Reoperation
KW - Vagus nerve stimulation
KW - Treatment options
N2 - Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to analyze the long-term outcomes of patients who were classified as Engel IV one year after resective epilepsy surgery. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment options and to examine the reasons that the patients did not undergo resective reoperation. Methods: Our study was designed as a retrospective open-label investigation of the long-term outcomes of 34 patients (12% of all surgically treated patients) who were classified as Engel IV one year after epilepsy surgery. Results: At the last follow-up visit (average of 7.6 +/- 4.2 years after surgery), 12 of the 34 examined patients (35.3%) were still classified as Engel IV; 22 of the 34 patients (64.7%) were improved (Engel I III). Of the 34 patients, 8 (23.5%) achieved an excellent outcome, classified as Engel I, 3 patients (8.8%) were classified as Engel II, and 11 patients (32.4%) as Engel III. The seizure outcome in the patients classified as Engel I was achieved by resective reoperation in 4; by a change in antiepileptic medication in 3 patients; and by vagus nerve stimulation (VHS) in 1 patient. The seizure outcome of Engel II was achieved by a change in antiepileptic medication in all 3 patients. Of the 34 patients, a total of 6 (17.6%) underwent resective reoperation only. The major reasons for this were the absence of a plausible hypothesis for invasive re-evaluation, the risk of postoperative deficit, and multifocal epilepsy in the rest of patients. Conclusion: Although the reoperation rate was relatively low in our series, we can achieve better or even excellent seizure outcomes using other procedures in patients for whom resective surgery initially failed.
ER -
RYZÍ, Michal, Milan BRÁZDIL, Zdeněk NOVÁK, Jan HEMZA, Jan CHRASTINA, Hana OŠLEJŠKOVÁ, Ivan REKTOR and Robert KUBA. Long-term outcomes in patients after epilepsy surgery failure. \textit{Epilepsy Research}. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2015, vol.~110, February, p.~71-77. ISSN~0920-1211. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2014.11.011.
|
