OBJECTIVE 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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. CONCLUSIONS 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.

Voice and face processing occur through convergent neural systems that facilitate speaker recognition. Neuroimaging studies suggest that familiar voice processing engages early visual cortex, including the bilateral fusiform gyri (FG) on the basal temporal lobe. However, what role the FG plays in familiar voice processing and whether it is driven by bottom-up or top-down mechanisms is unresolved. In this study we directly examined neural responses to familiar voices and faces in human FG using direct cortical recordings in epilepsy surgery patients. We tested the hypothesis that neural populations in human FG respond to familiar voices and investigated the temporal properties of voice responses in FG. Recordings were acquired from five adult epilepsy surgery patients during a person identification task using visual and auditory stimuli from famous speakers (U.S. presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton). Patients were presented with images of presidents or clips of their voices and asked to identify the portrait/speaker. Our results demonstrate that a subset of face responsive sites in and near FG also exhibit voice responses that are both lower in magnitude and relatively delayed (300-600 ms) relative to visual responses. The dynamics of voice responses revealed by direct cortical recordings suggests a top-down feedback-mediated response to familiar voices in FG that may facilitate speaker identification.

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.