Objective Invasive monitoring is sometimes necessary to guide resective surgery in epilepsy patients, but the ideal method is unknown. In this systematic review, we assess the association of postresection seizure freedom and adverse events in stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) and subdural electrodes (SDE). Methods We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials]) from their inception to January 2018 with the keywords “electroencephalography,” “intracranial grid,” and “epilepsy.” Studies that presented primary quantitative patient data for postresection seizure freedom with at least 1 year of follow‐up or complication rates of SEEG‐ or SDE‐monitored patients were included. Two trained investigators independently collected data from eligible studies. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were used as a measure of the association of SEEG or SDE with seizure freedom and with adverse event outcomes. Results Of 11 462 screened records, 48 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies reported on 1973 SEEG patients and 2036 SDE patients. Our systematic review revealed SEEG was associated with 61.0% and SDE was associated with 56.4% seizure freedom after resection (WMD = +5.8%, 95% CI = 4.7‐6.9%, P = .001). Furthermore, SEEG was associated with 4.8% and SDE was associated with 15.5% morbidity (WMD = −10.6%, 95% CI = −11.6 to −9.6%, P = .001). SEEG was associated with 0.2% mortality and SDE was associated with 0.4% mortality (WMD = −0.2%, 95% CI = −0.3 to −0.1%, P = .001). Significance In this systematic review of SEEG and SDE invasive monitoring techniques, SEEG was associated with fewer surgical resections yet better seizure freedom outcomes in those undergoing resections. SEEG was also associated with lower mortality and morbidity than SDE. Clinical studies directly comparing these modalities are necessary to understand the relative rates of seizure freedom, morbidity, and mortality associated with these techniques.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:There are few articles characterizing cerebellar lesions in patients with TSC and no published series documenting longitudinal evaluation of these lesions, to our knowledge. Recent suggestion of a correlation between autism and cerebellar lesions in patients with TSC heightens the importance of understanding these lesions. Our purpose was to characterize cerebellar lesions in a cohort of young patients with TSC with specific interest in assessing longitudinal changes.

Accurate and safe localization of epileptic foci is the crux of surgical therapy for focal epilepsy. As an initial evaluation, patients with drug-resistant epilepsy often undergo evaluation by noninvasive methods to identify the epileptic focus (i.e., the epileptogenic zone (EZ)). When there is incongruence of noninvasive neuroimaging, electroencephalographic, and clinical data, direct intracranial recordings of the brain are often necessary to delineate the EZ and determine the best course of treatment. Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) and subdural electrodes (SDEs) are the 2 most common methods for recording directly from the cortex to delineate the EZ. For the past several decades, SEEG and SDEs have been used almost exclusively in specific geographic regions (i.e., France and Italy for stereo-EEG and elsewhere for SDEs) for virtually the same indications. In the last decade, however, stereo-EEG has started to spread from select centers in Europe to many locations worldwide. Nevertheless, it is still not the preferred method for invasive localization of the EZ at many centers that continue to employ SDEs exclusively. Despite the increased dissemination of the SEEG method throughout the globe, important questions remain unanswered. Which method (SEEG or SDEs) is superior for identification of the EZ and does it depend on the etiology of epilepsy? Which technique is safer and does this hold for all patient populations? Should these 2 methods have equivalent indications or be used selectively for different focal epilepsies? In this review, we seek to address these questions using current invasive monitoring literature. Available meta-analyses of observational data suggest that SEEG is safer than SDEs, but it is less clear from available data which method is more accurate at delineating the EZ.