west china medical publishers
Author
  • Title
  • Author
  • Keyword
  • Abstract
Advance search
Advance search

Search

find Author "林元相" 2 results
  • 癫痫的侵袭性术前评估

    癫痫切除手术前精确定位致痫灶至关重要,目前,对于综合无创性评估仍无法定位致痫灶或区分功能区的患者,国际上常采用硬膜下电极脑电图监测(Subduralel ectrodes EEG, SDEG)和立体定向脑电图(SEEG)两种侵袭性颅内脑电图(intracranial electroencephalography, iEEG)评估方法进一步定位致痫灶及区分功能区。SDEG 优势在于其相邻皮质覆盖连续性较好、皮层与电极的解剖关系清楚以及功能区定位相对容易;缺点主要在于对深部脑组织覆盖监测较差、癫痫起源的三维结构难以体现、双侧或相隔较远的多个区域植入困难以及创伤较大、并发症比例较高。SEEG 的优点在于定位深部皮质相对容易、癫痫起源的三维结构清楚、微创性高、适合双侧或相隔较远的多个区域植入;缺点在于相邻皮质覆盖连续性较差、功能区定位相对困难、植入过程中可损伤颅内血管导致颅内出血。近年来,iEEG 监测快速发展,但仍需进一步探索,如通过技术的不断改进及创新实现精确植入电极及降低植入并发症,通过设计临床前瞻性研究进一步研究 SDEG 和 SEEG 在定位致痫灶、切除范围及术后疗效的差异等。目前,SDEG 和 SEEG 在术前定位致痫灶方面各有优缺点,临床上应根据患者的具体情况个体化选择方案。

    Release date:2020-03-20 08:06 Export PDF Favorites Scan
  • Comparison of the application of two kinds of iEEG monitoring methods (SEEG vs. SDEG) in patients with “difficult to locate” Intractable Epilepsy

    ObjectiveTo explore the advantages and disadvantages of using two intracranial EEG (iEEG) monitoring methods—Subdural ectrodes electroencephalography (SDEG)and Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG), in patients with “difficult to locate” Intractable Epilepsy. MethodsRetrospectively analyzed the data of 60 patients with SDEG monitoring (49 cases) and SEEG monitoring (11 cases) from January 2010 to December 2018 in the Department of Neurosurgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical. Observe and statistically compare the differences in the evaluation results of epileptic zones, surgical efficacy and related complications of the two groups of patients, and review the relevant literature. ResultsThe results showed that the two groups of SDEG and SEEG had no significant difference in the positive rate and surgical resection rate of epileptogenic zones, but the bilateral implantation rate of SEEG (5/11, 45.5%) was higher than that of SDEG (18/49, 36.7%). At present, there was no significant difference in the postoperative outcome among patients with epileptic zones resected after SDEG and SEEG monitoring (P>0.05). However, due to the limitation of the number of SEEG cases, it is not yet possible to conclude that the two effects were the same. There was a statistically significant difference in the total incidence of serious complications of bleeding or infection between the two groups (SDEG 20 cases vs. SEEG 1 case, P<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the total incidence of significant headache or cerebral edema between the two groups (SDEG 26 cases vs. SEEG 2 cases, P<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid leakage, subcutaneous fluid incision, and poor healing of incision after epileptic resection (SDEG 14 cases vs. SEEG 0 case, P<0.05); there were no significant differences in dysfunction of speech, muscle strength between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionSEEG has fewer complications than SDEG, SEEG is safer than SDEG. The two kinds of iEEG monitoring methods have advantages in the localization of epileptogenic zones and the differentiation of functional areas. The effective combination of the two methods in the future may be more conducive to the location of epileptic zones and functional areas.

    Release date:2020-09-04 03:02 Export PDF Favorites Scan
1 pages Previous 1 Next

Format

Content