Stereoelectroencephalography Versus Subdural Strip Electrode Implantations: Feasibility, Complications, and Outcomes in 500 Intracranial Monitoring Cases for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) and subdural strip electrodes (SSE) are used for intracranial electroencephalographic recordings in the invasive investigation of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. OBJECTIVE: To compare SEEG and SSE with respect to feasibility, complications, and outcome in this single-center study. METHODS: Patient characteristics, periprocedural parameters, complications, and outcome were acquired from a pro- and retrospectively managed databank to compare SEEG and SSE cases. RESULTS: A total of 500 intracranial electroencephalographic monitoring cases in 450 patients were analyzed (145 SEEG and 355 SSE). Both groups were of similar age, gender distribution, and duration of epilepsy. Implantation of each SEEG electrode took 13.9 ± 7.6 min (20 ± 12 min for each SSE; P < .01). Radiation exposure to the patient was 4.3 ± 7.7 s to a dose area product of 14.6 ± 27.9 rad*cm2 for SEEG and 9.4 ± 8.9 s with 21 ± 22.4 rad*cm2 for SSE (P < .01). There was no difference in the length of stay (12.2 ± 7.2 and 12 ± 6.3 d). The complication rate was low in both groups. No infections were seen in SEEG cases (2.3% after SSE). The rate of hemorrhage was 2.8% for SEEG and 1.4% for SSE. Surgical outcome was similar. CONCLUSION: SEEG allows targeting deeply situated foci with a non-inferior safety profile to SSE and seizure outcome comparable to SSE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".