Responsive neurostimulation for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case series and review of the literature

Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is a promising treatment for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy for whom resective surgery is not an option. The relative indications and risk for pediatric patients undergoing RNS therapy require further investigation. Here, the authors report their ex...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurosurgical focus 2022-10, Vol.53 (4), p.E10-E10
Hauptverfasser: Curtis, Kendall, Hect, Jasmine L, Harford, Emily, Welch, William P, Abel, Taylor J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page E10
container_issue 4
container_start_page E10
container_title Neurosurgical focus
container_volume 53
creator Curtis, Kendall
Hect, Jasmine L
Harford, Emily
Welch, William P
Abel, Taylor J
description Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is a promising treatment for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy for whom resective surgery is not an option. The relative indications and risk for pediatric patients undergoing RNS therapy require further investigation. Here, the authors report their experience with RNS implantation and therapy in pediatric patients. The authors performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients implanted with RNS depth or strip electrodes for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy at their institution between 2020 and 2022. Patient demographics, surgical variables, and patient seizure outcomes (Engel class and International League Against Epilepsy [ILAE] reporting) were evaluated. The authors identified 20 pediatric patients ranging in age from 8 to 21 years (mean 15 [SD 4] years), who underwent RNS implantation, including depth electrodes (n = 15), strip electrodes (n = 2), or both (n = 3). Patient seizure semiology, onset, and implantation strategy were heterogeneous, including bilateral centromedian nucleus (n = 5), mesial temporal lobe (n = 4), motor cortex or supplementary motor area (n = 7), or within an extratemporal epileptogenic zone (n = 4). There were no acute complications of RNS implantation (hemorrhage or stroke) or device malfunctions. One patient required rehospitalization for postoperative infection. At the longest follow-up (mean 10 [SD 7] months), 13% patients had Engel class IIB, 38% had Engel class IIIA, 6% had Engel class IIIB, 19% had Engel class IVA, 19% had Engel class IVB, and 6% had Engel class IVC outcomes. Using ILAE metrics, 6% were ILAE class 3, 25% were ILAE class 4, and 69% were ILAE class 5. This case series supports current literature suggesting that RNS is a safe and potentially effective surgical intervention for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The authors report comparable rates of serious adverse events to current RNS literature in pediatric and adult populations. Seizure outcomes may continue to improve with follow-up as stimulation strategy is refined and the chronic neuromodulatory effect evolves, as previously described in patients with RNS. Further large-scale, multicenter case series of RNS in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are required to determine long-term pediatric safety and effectiveness.
doi_str_mv 10.3171/2022.7.FOCUS22331
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2720424807</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2720424807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-63a113e333781ff2ef15e6dbeb9486ec9126b526cc27d0d592749cca04fac0e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AC-yRy-p-5FkE29SrApCQe05bDYTu5IvdzYtxT9vSusHDMwwvM97eAi55GwqueI3ggkxVdP5YrZ8FUJKfkTGnKUiYHESHv-7R-QM8YMxKSIVnZKRjHkihxmTrxfArm3QroE20LsWva37SnvbNrRsHe2gsNo7a2g3PKHxSDfWr2jh-vfAAVr0uvEUOltBh9tbqqnRCBTBWUCqm4I6WFvY0LakfgW0sh6c9r2Dc3JS6grh4rAnZDm_f5s9Bs-Lh6fZ3XNgZBj6IJaacwlSSpXwshRQ8gjiIoc8DZMYTMpFnEciNkaoghVRKlSYGqNZWGrDBm5Crve9nWs_e0Cf1RYNVJVuoO0xE0qwUIQJU0OU76NmMIEOyqxzttZum3GW7ZxnO-eZyv6cD8zVob7Payh-iR_J8huMQH_q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2720424807</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Responsive neurostimulation for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case series and review of the literature</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Curtis, Kendall ; Hect, Jasmine L ; Harford, Emily ; Welch, William P ; Abel, Taylor J</creator><creatorcontrib>Curtis, Kendall ; Hect, Jasmine L ; Harford, Emily ; Welch, William P ; Abel, Taylor J</creatorcontrib><description>Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is a promising treatment for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy for whom resective surgery is not an option. The relative indications and risk for pediatric patients undergoing RNS therapy require further investigation. Here, the authors report their experience with RNS implantation and therapy in pediatric patients. The authors performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients implanted with RNS depth or strip electrodes for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy at their institution between 2020 and 2022. Patient demographics, surgical variables, and patient seizure outcomes (Engel class and International League Against Epilepsy [ILAE] reporting) were evaluated. The authors identified 20 pediatric patients ranging in age from 8 to 21 years (mean 15 [SD 4] years), who underwent RNS implantation, including depth electrodes (n = 15), strip electrodes (n = 2), or both (n = 3). Patient seizure semiology, onset, and implantation strategy were heterogeneous, including bilateral centromedian nucleus (n = 5), mesial temporal lobe (n = 4), motor cortex or supplementary motor area (n = 7), or within an extratemporal epileptogenic zone (n = 4). There were no acute complications of RNS implantation (hemorrhage or stroke) or device malfunctions. One patient required rehospitalization for postoperative infection. At the longest follow-up (mean 10 [SD 7] months), 13% patients had Engel class IIB, 38% had Engel class IIIA, 6% had Engel class IIIB, 19% had Engel class IVA, 19% had Engel class IVB, and 6% had Engel class IVC outcomes. Using ILAE metrics, 6% were ILAE class 3, 25% were ILAE class 4, and 69% were ILAE class 5. This case series supports current literature suggesting that RNS is a safe and potentially effective surgical intervention for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The authors report comparable rates of serious adverse events to current RNS literature in pediatric and adult populations. Seizure outcomes may continue to improve with follow-up as stimulation strategy is refined and the chronic neuromodulatory effect evolves, as previously described in patients with RNS. Further large-scale, multicenter case series of RNS in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are required to determine long-term pediatric safety and effectiveness.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1092-0684</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1092-0684</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3171/2022.7.FOCUS22331</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36183183</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Child ; Drug Resistant Epilepsy - etiology ; Drug Resistant Epilepsy - surgery ; Electrodes, Implanted - adverse effects ; Epilepsy - therapy ; Humans ; Multicenter Studies as Topic ; Retrospective Studies ; Seizures - etiology ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Neurosurgical focus, 2022-10, Vol.53 (4), p.E10-E10</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-63a113e333781ff2ef15e6dbeb9486ec9126b526cc27d0d592749cca04fac0e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-63a113e333781ff2ef15e6dbeb9486ec9126b526cc27d0d592749cca04fac0e33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36183183$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Curtis, Kendall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hect, Jasmine L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harford, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welch, William P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abel, Taylor J</creatorcontrib><title>Responsive neurostimulation for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case series and review of the literature</title><title>Neurosurgical focus</title><addtitle>Neurosurg Focus</addtitle><description>Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is a promising treatment for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy for whom resective surgery is not an option. The relative indications and risk for pediatric patients undergoing RNS therapy require further investigation. Here, the authors report their experience with RNS implantation and therapy in pediatric patients. The authors performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients implanted with RNS depth or strip electrodes for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy at their institution between 2020 and 2022. Patient demographics, surgical variables, and patient seizure outcomes (Engel class and International League Against Epilepsy [ILAE] reporting) were evaluated. The authors identified 20 pediatric patients ranging in age from 8 to 21 years (mean 15 [SD 4] years), who underwent RNS implantation, including depth electrodes (n = 15), strip electrodes (n = 2), or both (n = 3). Patient seizure semiology, onset, and implantation strategy were heterogeneous, including bilateral centromedian nucleus (n = 5), mesial temporal lobe (n = 4), motor cortex or supplementary motor area (n = 7), or within an extratemporal epileptogenic zone (n = 4). There were no acute complications of RNS implantation (hemorrhage or stroke) or device malfunctions. One patient required rehospitalization for postoperative infection. At the longest follow-up (mean 10 [SD 7] months), 13% patients had Engel class IIB, 38% had Engel class IIIA, 6% had Engel class IIIB, 19% had Engel class IVA, 19% had Engel class IVB, and 6% had Engel class IVC outcomes. Using ILAE metrics, 6% were ILAE class 3, 25% were ILAE class 4, and 69% were ILAE class 5. This case series supports current literature suggesting that RNS is a safe and potentially effective surgical intervention for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The authors report comparable rates of serious adverse events to current RNS literature in pediatric and adult populations. Seizure outcomes may continue to improve with follow-up as stimulation strategy is refined and the chronic neuromodulatory effect evolves, as previously described in patients with RNS. Further large-scale, multicenter case series of RNS in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are required to determine long-term pediatric safety and effectiveness.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Drug Resistant Epilepsy - etiology</subject><subject>Drug Resistant Epilepsy - surgery</subject><subject>Electrodes, Implanted - adverse effects</subject><subject>Epilepsy - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Multicenter Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Seizures - etiology</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1092-0684</issn><issn>1092-0684</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AC-yRy-p-5FkE29SrApCQe05bDYTu5IvdzYtxT9vSusHDMwwvM97eAi55GwqueI3ggkxVdP5YrZ8FUJKfkTGnKUiYHESHv-7R-QM8YMxKSIVnZKRjHkihxmTrxfArm3QroE20LsWva37SnvbNrRsHe2gsNo7a2g3PKHxSDfWr2jh-vfAAVr0uvEUOltBh9tbqqnRCBTBWUCqm4I6WFvY0LakfgW0sh6c9r2Dc3JS6grh4rAnZDm_f5s9Bs-Lh6fZ3XNgZBj6IJaacwlSSpXwshRQ8gjiIoc8DZMYTMpFnEciNkaoghVRKlSYGqNZWGrDBm5Crve9nWs_e0Cf1RYNVJVuoO0xE0qwUIQJU0OU76NmMIEOyqxzttZum3GW7ZxnO-eZyv6cD8zVob7Payh-iR_J8huMQH_q</recordid><startdate>20221001</startdate><enddate>20221001</enddate><creator>Curtis, Kendall</creator><creator>Hect, Jasmine L</creator><creator>Harford, Emily</creator><creator>Welch, William P</creator><creator>Abel, Taylor J</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221001</creationdate><title>Responsive neurostimulation for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case series and review of the literature</title><author>Curtis, Kendall ; Hect, Jasmine L ; Harford, Emily ; Welch, William P ; Abel, Taylor J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-63a113e333781ff2ef15e6dbeb9486ec9126b526cc27d0d592749cca04fac0e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Drug Resistant Epilepsy - etiology</topic><topic>Drug Resistant Epilepsy - surgery</topic><topic>Electrodes, Implanted - adverse effects</topic><topic>Epilepsy - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Multicenter Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Seizures - etiology</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Curtis, Kendall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hect, Jasmine L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harford, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Welch, William P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abel, Taylor J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurosurgical focus</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Curtis, Kendall</au><au>Hect, Jasmine L</au><au>Harford, Emily</au><au>Welch, William P</au><au>Abel, Taylor J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Responsive neurostimulation for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case series and review of the literature</atitle><jtitle>Neurosurgical focus</jtitle><addtitle>Neurosurg Focus</addtitle><date>2022-10-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>E10</spage><epage>E10</epage><pages>E10-E10</pages><issn>1092-0684</issn><eissn>1092-0684</eissn><abstract>Responsive neurostimulation (RNS) is a promising treatment for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy for whom resective surgery is not an option. The relative indications and risk for pediatric patients undergoing RNS therapy require further investigation. Here, the authors report their experience with RNS implantation and therapy in pediatric patients. The authors performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients implanted with RNS depth or strip electrodes for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy at their institution between 2020 and 2022. Patient demographics, surgical variables, and patient seizure outcomes (Engel class and International League Against Epilepsy [ILAE] reporting) were evaluated. The authors identified 20 pediatric patients ranging in age from 8 to 21 years (mean 15 [SD 4] years), who underwent RNS implantation, including depth electrodes (n = 15), strip electrodes (n = 2), or both (n = 3). Patient seizure semiology, onset, and implantation strategy were heterogeneous, including bilateral centromedian nucleus (n = 5), mesial temporal lobe (n = 4), motor cortex or supplementary motor area (n = 7), or within an extratemporal epileptogenic zone (n = 4). There were no acute complications of RNS implantation (hemorrhage or stroke) or device malfunctions. One patient required rehospitalization for postoperative infection. At the longest follow-up (mean 10 [SD 7] months), 13% patients had Engel class IIB, 38% had Engel class IIIA, 6% had Engel class IIIB, 19% had Engel class IVA, 19% had Engel class IVB, and 6% had Engel class IVC outcomes. Using ILAE metrics, 6% were ILAE class 3, 25% were ILAE class 4, and 69% were ILAE class 5. This case series supports current literature suggesting that RNS is a safe and potentially effective surgical intervention for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The authors report comparable rates of serious adverse events to current RNS literature in pediatric and adult populations. Seizure outcomes may continue to improve with follow-up as stimulation strategy is refined and the chronic neuromodulatory effect evolves, as previously described in patients with RNS. Further large-scale, multicenter case series of RNS in pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy are required to determine long-term pediatric safety and effectiveness.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>36183183</pmid><doi>10.3171/2022.7.FOCUS22331</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1092-0684
ispartof Neurosurgical focus, 2022-10, Vol.53 (4), p.E10-E10
issn 1092-0684
1092-0684
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2720424807
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Child
Drug Resistant Epilepsy - etiology
Drug Resistant Epilepsy - surgery
Electrodes, Implanted - adverse effects
Epilepsy - therapy
Humans
Multicenter Studies as Topic
Retrospective Studies
Seizures - etiology
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
title Responsive neurostimulation for pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a case series and review of the literature
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T11%3A07%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Responsive%20neurostimulation%20for%20pediatric%20patients%20with%20drug-resistant%20epilepsy:%20a%20case%20series%20and%20review%20of%20the%20literature&rft.jtitle=Neurosurgical%20focus&rft.au=Curtis,%20Kendall&rft.date=2022-10-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=E10&rft.epage=E10&rft.pages=E10-E10&rft.issn=1092-0684&rft.eissn=1092-0684&rft_id=info:doi/10.3171/2022.7.FOCUS22331&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2720424807%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2720424807&rft_id=info:pmid/36183183&rfr_iscdi=true