Pediatric stereo-electroencephalography: effects of robot assistance and other variables on seizure outcome and complications

Frame-based versus robot-assisted stereo-electro-encephalography for drug-resistant epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) is an effective presurgical invasive evaluation for drug-resistant epilepsies. The introduction of robotic devices provides a simplified, accurate, and safe alternative to the conventional SEEG technique. We report our institutional experience with robot-assisted SEEG and compare its in vivo accuracy, operation efficiency, and safety with the more traditional SEEG workflow.

METHODS

All patients with medically refractory focal epilepsy who underwent SEEG depth electrode implantation between 2014 and 2022 were included in this study. Technical advancements of the robot-assisted technique are described. Analyses of patient demographics, electrode implantation accuracy, operation time, and procedure-related complications were performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-six patients underwent 167 SEEG procedures. The first 141 procedures were performed using a conventional approach involving a Leksell stereotactic system, and the last 26 procedures were robot-assisted. Among the 1726 depth electrodes that were inserted, the median entry point localization error was as follows: conventional (1.0 mm; range, 0.1-33.5 mm) and robot-assisted (1.1 mm; range, 0-4.8 mm) (P = 0.17). The median target point localization error was as follows: conventional (2.8 mm; range, 0.1-49 mm) and robot-assisted (1.8 mm; range, 0-30.3 mm) (P < 0.001). The median operation time was significantly reduced with the robot-assisted workflow (90 min vs. 77.5 min; P < 0.01). Total complication rates were as follows: conventional (17.7%) and robot-assisted (11.5%) (P = 0.57). Major complication rates were 3.5% and 7.7% (P = 0.77), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SEEG is a safe and highly accurate method that provides essential guidance for epilepsy surgery. Implementing SEEG in conjunction with multimodal planning systems and robotic devices can further increase safety margin, surgical efficiency, and accuracy.

Robot-assisted vs. manually guided stereoelectroencephalography for refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic assistance has improved electrode implantation precision in stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) for refractory epilepsy patients. We sought to assess the relative safety of the robotic-assisted (RA) procedure compared to the traditional hand-guided one. A systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane was performed for studies directly comparing robot-assisted vs. manually guided SEEG to treat refractory epilepsy. The primary outcomes included target point error (TPE), entry point error (EPE), time of implantation of each electrode, operative time, postoperative intracranial hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic deficit. We included 427 patients from 11 studies, of whom 232 (54.3%) underwent robot-assisted surgery and 196 (45.7%) underwent manually guided surgery. The primary endpoint, TPE, was not statistically significant (MD 0.04 mm; 95% CI - 0.21, - 0.29; p = 0.76). Nonetheless, EPE was significantly lower in the intervention group (MD - 0.57 mm; 95% CI - 1.08; - 0.06; p = 0.03). Total operative time was significantly lower in the RA group (MD - 23.66 min; 95% CI - 32.01, - 15.31; p < 0.00001), as well as the individual time of implantation of each electrode (MD - 3.35 min; 95% CI - 3.68, - 3.03; p < 0.00001). Postoperative intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups: robotic (9/145; 6.2%) vs. manual (8/139; 5.7%) (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.40-2.34; p = 0.94). There was no statistically relevant difference in infection (p = 0.4) and postoperative neurological deficit (p = 0.47) incidence between the two groups. In this analysis, there is a potential relevance in the RA procedure when comparing the traditional one, since operative time, time of implantation of each electrode, and EPE were significantly lower in the robotic group. More research is needed to corroborate the superiority of this novel technique.

Recent advances in epilepsy surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Technological innovations in the preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques and outcome prediction in epilepsy surgery have grown exponentially over the last decade. This review highlights and emphasizes relevant updates in techniques and diagnostic tools, discussing their context within standard practice at comprehensive epilepsy centres.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-resolution structural imaging has set an unprecedented opportunity to detect previously unrecognized subtle abnormalities. Machine learning and computer science are impacting the methodologies to analyse presurgical and surgical outcome data, building more accurate prediction models to tailor treatment strategies. Robotic-assisted placement of depth electrodes has increased the safety and ability to sample epileptogenic nodes within deep structures, improving our understanding of the seizure networks in drug-resistant epilepsy. The current available minimally invasive techniques are reasonable surgical alternatives to ablate or disrupt epileptogenic regions, although their sustained efficacy is still an active area of research.

SUMMARY

Epilepsy surgery is still underutilized worldwide. Every patient who continues with seizures despite adequate trials of two well selected and tolerated antiseizure medications should be evaluated for surgical candidacy. Collaboration between academic epilepsy centres is of paramount importance to answer long-standing questions in epilepsy surgery regarding the understanding of spatio-temporal dynamics in epileptogenic networks and its impact on surgical outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Destructive, Ablative, and Disconnective Epilepsy Surgery

Conventional epilepsy surgery performed by microsurgical dissection typically requires large cranial working windows created with high-speed drills and lengthy incisions. In the past few decades, minimally invasive techniques have been developed with smaller incisions, comparable efficacy, shorter hospitalizations, and better safety profiles. These minimally invasive alternatives utilize stereotactic, ultrasonic, radiotherapeutic, and endoscopic techniques. Although not able to completely replace conventional surgery for all etiologies of epilepsy, these minimally invasive techniques have revolutionized modern epilepsy surgery and have been an invaluable asset to the neurosurgeon's repertoire. The endoscope has allowed for surgeons to have adequate visualization during resective and disconnective epilepsy surgeries using keyhole or miniature craniotomies. Modern stereotactic techniques such as laser interstitial thermal therapy and radiofrequency ablation can be used as viable alternatives for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and can destroy lesional tissue deep areas without the approach-related morbidity of microsurgery such as with hypothalamic hamartomas. These stereotactic techniques do not preclude future surgery in the settings of treatment failure and have been used successfully after failed conventional surgery. Multiple ablation corridors can be performed in a single procedure that can be used for lesioning of large targets or to simplify treating multifocal epilepsies. These stereotactic techniques have even been used successfully to perform disconnective procedures such as hemispherotomies and corpus callosotomies. In patients unable to tolerate surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery is a minimally invasive option that can result in improved seizure control with minimal procedural risks. Advances in minimally invasive neurosurgery provide viable treatment options for drug-resistant epilepsy with quicker recovery, less injury to functional brain, and for patients that may otherwise not choose conventional surgery.

Subdural electrodes versus stereoelectroencephalography for pediatric epileptogenic zone localization: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the relative safety and effectiveness of invasive monitoring with subdural electrodes (SDEs) and stereoelectroencephalography (sEEG) in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed in 176 patients who underwent invasive monitoring evaluations at UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh between January 2000 and September 2021. To examine differences between SDE and sEEG groups, independent-samples t-tests for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square tests for categorical variables were performed. A p value < 0.1 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 134 patients (76%) in the SDE group and 42 (24%) in the sEEG group. There was a difference in the proportion with complications (17.9% in the SDE group vs 7.1% in the sEEG group, p = 0.09) and resection (75.4% SDE vs 21.4% sEEG, p < 0.01) between SDE and sEEG patients. However, there was no observable difference in the rates of postresection seizure freedom at 1-year clinical follow-up (60.2% SDE vs 75.0% sEEG, p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal a difference in rates of surgical complications and resection between SDEs and sEEG. Larger prospective, multi-institutional pediatric comparative effectiveness studies may further explore these associations.