Premium
Stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy
Author(s) -
Feng E.S.,
Sui C.B.,
Wang T.X.,
Sun G.L.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
acta neurologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.967
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1600-0404
pISSN - 0001-6314
DOI - 10.1111/ane.12562
Subject(s) - medicine , radiosurgery , confidence interval , epilepsy , temporal lobe , meta analysis , randomized controlled trial , adverse effect , psychiatry , radiation therapy
Objectives Stereotactic radiosurgery ( RS ) is a potential option for some patients with temporal lobe epilepsy ( TLE ). The aim of this meta‐analysis was to determine the pooled seizure‐free rate and the time interval to seizure cessation in patients with lesions in the mesial temporal lobe, and who were eligible for either stereotactic or gamma knife RS. Materials & Methods We searched the Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE , and Google Scholar databases using combinations of the following terms: RS, stereotactic radiosurgery, gamma knife, and TLE. Results We screened 103 articles and selected 13 for inclusion in the meta‐analysis. Significant study heterogeneity was detected; however, the included studies displayed an acceptable level of quality. We show that approximately half of the patients were seizure free over a follow‐up period that ranged from 6 months to 9 years [pooled estimate: 50.9% (95% confidence interval: 0.381–0.636)], with an average of 14 months to seizure cessation [pooled estimate: 14.08 months (95% confidence interval: 11.95–12.22 months)]. Nine of 13 included studies reported data for adverse events ( AE s), which included visual field deficits and headache (the two most common AE s), verbal memory impairment, psychosis, psychogenic non‐epileptic seizures, and dysphasia. Patients in the individual studies experienced AE s at rates that ranged from 8%, for non‐epileptic seizures, to 85%, for headache. Conclusion Our findings indicate that RS may have similar or slightly less efficacy in some patients compared with invasive surgery. Randomized controlled trials of both treatment regimens should be undertaken to generate an evidence base for patient decision‐making.