Epilepsy surgery in adults older than 50 years: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the general safety and efficacy of epilepsy surgery, there is evidence that epilepsy surgery remains underutilized. Although there are an increasing number of studies reporting epilepsy surgery in older adults, there is no consensus on whether epilepsy surgery is efficacious or safe for this population. Our objective was to systematically assess the efficacy as well as safety of resective surgery in people aged 50 years or older with drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: We considered studies that examine the efficacy and safety of epilepsy surgery in adults aged 50 years and older. Study eligibility was limited to studies carried out after 1990, with a minimum of 10 participants and 6 months of follow-up. We searched the following databases for published studies: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The risk of bias of each included study was independently assessed by two reviewers using the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) instrument. RESULTS: Eleven case series and 14 cohort studies met the criteria for inclusion, for a total of 1111 older adults who underwent epilepsy surgery along with 4111 adults younger than 50 years as control groups. The pooled cumulative incidence of older adults achieving seizure freedom after resective surgery was 70.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 65.3-74.7). There was no evident difference in the incidence of seizure freedom among older adults as compared to younger adults (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05, 95% CI = .97-1.14) in cohort studies. The pooled cumulative incidence of perioperative complications in older adults was 26.2% (95% CI = 21.3-31.7). Among them, 7.5% (95% CI = 5.8-9.5) experienced major complications. Older adults were significantly more at risk of experiencing any complication than younger adults (RR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.5-5.4). SIGNIFICANCE: Despite important considerations, epilepsy surgery may be considered appropriate among carefully selected individuals older than 50 years.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".