MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225255785 · doi:10.3171/2022.2.focus21788

Focal lesionectomy as surgical treatment of epilepsy in patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome: a case-based systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4225255785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Alexandra Frank, Ladina Greuter, Patricia Dill, Raphaël Guzman, Jehuda Soleman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations and Hemangiomas
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisAnterior temporal lobectomySurgerySturge–Weber syndromeEpilepsySystematic reviewMEDLINEEpilepsy surgeryPediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicVascular Malformations and HemangiomasFrench-language works237,207