Focal lesionectomy as surgical treatment of epilepsy in patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome: a case-based systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS) is a rare neurocutaneous disorder presenting mostly with a facial port-wine stain and leptomeningeal angiomatosis. More than 85% of the patients are affected by epilepsy by the age of 2 years. Seizure and symptom control is the focus of SWS treatment, since no causal therapy exists yet. For pharmacologically intractable epilepsy, surgery is a treatment option. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide an overview of the literature regarding lesionectomy in SWS with a focus on seizure outcome, complications, and motor and cognitive development. METHODS: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched using a systematic search strategy to identify studies on SWS from their inception until 2021. Two independent researchers assessed the studies for inclusion and quality. Outcome measures were seizure outcome, postoperative complications, and motor and cognitive development. Thereafter, a systematic review was conducted, and a meta-analysis was performed for all included cohort studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plots have been generated for all outcomes; risk ratio was used for pooled outcomes. A p value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, the authors screened 439 articles, of which 9 articles with 150 patients were included. Our case and 5 case reports and 4 retrospective cohort studies were included for systematic review. The latter 4 studies qualified for the meta-analysis. In these 4 articles, 144 patients received surgical treatment: 81 (56%) underwent focal lesionectomy and 63 (44%) hemispherectomy. Pooled outcome analysis for postoperative favorable seizure outcome showed a nonsignificant difference between lesionectomy and hemispherectomy (69.2% vs 87.3%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.08; t = -2.56, p = 0.08). Lesionectomy showed a significantly lower rate for developmental delay and postoperative hemiparesis in comparison with hemispherectomy (29.8% vs 76.3%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.59; z = -4.77, p < 0.0001 and 18.1% vs 100%; RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06-0.21; z = -6.58, p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited literature available, lesionectomy leads to a nonsignificant lower seizure control rate, while postoperative developmental or motor deficits are significantly lower compared with hemispherectomy. Therefore, focal lesionectomy remains a valid alternative to hemispherectomy in SWS with a clearly localized epileptogenic area; however, individual case-based decisions in a specialized multidisciplinary team are of paramount importance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».