Insufficient Efficacy of Corpus Callosotomy for Epileptic Spasms With Biphasic Muscular Contractions

Long-term follow-up seizure outcomes after corpus callosotomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Corpus callosotomy (CC) is appropriate for patients with seizures of a bilateral or diffuse origin, or those with seizures of a unilateral origin with rapid spread to the contralateral cerebral hemisphere. The efficiency of CC in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy is a long-term concern because most articles reporting the surgical results of CC arise from small case series, and the durations of follow-up vary.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify papers published before November 8, 2021. The systematic review was completed following PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes were analyzed by meta-analysis of the proportions.

RESULTS

A total of 1644 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (49 retrospective or prospective case series studies) underwent CC, and the follow-up time of all patients was at least 1 year. The rate of complete seizure freedom (SF) was 12.38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.17%-17.21%). Meanwhile, the rate of complete SF from drop attacks was 61.86% (95% CI, 51.87%-71.41%). The rates of complete SF after total corpus callosotomy (TCC) and anterior corpus callosotomy (ACC) were 11.41% (95% CI, 5.33%-18.91%) and 6.75% (95% CI, 2.76%-11.85%), respectively. Additionally, the rate of complete SF from drop attacks after TCC was significantly higher than that after ACC (71.52%, 95% CI, 54.22%-86.35% vs. 57.11%, 95% CI, 42.17%-71.49%). The quality of evidence for the three outcomes by GRADE assessment was low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the rate of complete SF between TCC and ACC. TCC had a significantly higher rate of complete SF from drop attacks than did ACC. Furthermore, CC for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy remains an important problem for further investigation because there are no universally accepted standardized guidelines for the extent of CC and its benefit to patients. In future research, we will focus on this issue.

Callosotomy vs Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) is a severe drug-resistant epileptic syndrome. Palliative treatments such as corpus callosotomy (CC) and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) have emerged as treatments to reduce the number of seizures in patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of CC and VNS in patients with LGS studied in the last 30 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and collected papers from PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovidsp, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library data bases. The articles analyzed were published between January 1990 and December 2020. Keywords were chosen based on internal and external validation in the PubMed data base (the analysis is available in the Supplementary Data Supplementary Appendix). Prospective or retrospective case reports (n ≥ 2), case series, cohort studies, or case-control studies involving patients with LGS were included in the analysis. We selected studies that had no age or sex restriction and that provided data on seizures before and after treatments. Studies not written in English, published without peer review, or not indexed in the data bases were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were the absence of seizure data and the impossibility of extracting this information from the studies. To analyze the results, we used the random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity (I² statistics) in two scenarios. In scenario 1, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction ≥ 50%; in scenario 2, we assessed the incidence of patients with a seizure reduction > 0%.

RESULTS

Of the 7418 articles found using the keywords, 32 were considered eligible. Of these, 18 articles were on VNS (175 patients) and 14 on CC (107 patients). For scenario 1 (seizure reduction ≥ 50%), CC had an incidence of 65% (95% CI, 37%-94%), with an I² value of 82.7%; VNS had an incidence of 34% (95% CI, 11%-57%), with an I² value of 80.7%. For scenario 2 (seizure reduction > 0%), CC had an incidence of 80% (95% CI, 58%-100%), with an I² value of 84.7%; VNS had an incidence of 64% (95% CI, 38%-89%), with an I² value of 90.8%. There was an overlap of confidence intervals, with no statistical difference between the treatments in both scenarios.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of LGS showed that the CC and VNS treatments are significantly beneficial to reducing seizures, without superiority between them.