BACKGROUND Despite the well-documented utility of responsive neurostimulation (RNS, NeuroPace) in adult epilepsy patients, literature on the use of RNS in children is limited. OBJECTIVE To determine the real-world efficacy and safety of RNS in pediatric epilepsy patients. METHODS Patients with childhood-onset drug-resistant epilepsy treated with RNS were retrospectively identified at 5 pediatric centers. Reduction of disabling seizures and complications were evaluated for children (<18 yr) and young adults (>18 yr) and compared with prior literature pertaining to adult patients. RESULTS Of 35 patients identified, 17 were <18 yr at the time of RNS implantation, including a 3-yr-old patient. Four patients (11%) had concurrent resection. Three complications, requiring additional surgical interventions, were noted in young adults (2 infections [6%] and 1 lead fracture [3%]). No complications were noted in children. Among the 32 patients with continued therapy, 2 (6%) achieved seizure freedom, 4 (13%) achieved ≥90% seizure reduction, 13 (41%) had ≥50% reduction, 8 (25%) had <50% reduction, and 5 (16%) experienced no improvement. The average follow-up duration was 1.7 yr (median 1.8 yr, range 0.3-4.8 yr). There was no statistically significant difference for seizure reduction and complications between children and young adults in our cohort or between our cohort and the adult literature. CONCLUSION These preliminary data suggest that RNS is well tolerated and an effective off-label surgical treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in carefully selected pediatric patients as young as 3 yr of age. Data regarding long-term efficacy and safety in children will be critical to optimize patient selection.

No abstract

Neurogenesis is associated with functional recovery after stroke. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms have not been fully investigated. Using an Ago2-based RNA immunoprecipitation to immunoprecipated Ago2-RNA complexes followed by RNA sequencing (Ago2 RIP-seq) approach, we profiled the miRNomes in neural progenitor cells (NPCs) harvested from the subventricular zone (SVZ) of the lateral ventricles of young adult rats. We identified more than 7 and 15 million reads in normal and ischemic NPC libraries, respectively. We found that stroke substantially changed Ago2-associated miRNA profiles in NPCs compared to those in non-ischemic NPCs. We also discovered a new complex repertoire of isomiRs and multiple miRNA-miRNA* pairs and numerous novel miRNAs in the non-ischemic and ischemic NPCs. Among them, pc-3p-17172 significantly regulated NPC proliferation and neuronal differentiation. Collectively, the present study reveals profiles of Ago2-associated miRNomes in non-ischemic and ischemic NPCs, which provide a molecular basis to further investigate the role of miRNAs in mediating adult neurogenesis under physiological and ischemic conditions.

No abstract

BACKGROUND Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is determined when a patient or physician defines the minimal change that outweighs the costs and untoward effects of a treatment. These measurements are “anchored” to validated quality-of-life instruments or physician-rated, disease-activity indices. To capture the subjective clinical experience in a measurable way, there is an increasing use of MCID. OBJECTIVE To review the overall concept, method of calculation, strengths, and weaknesses of MCID and its application in the neurosurgical literature. METHODS Recent articles were reviewed based on PubMed query. To illustrate the strengths and limitations of MCID, studies regarding the measurement of pain are emphasized and their impact on subsequent publications queried. RESULTS MCID varies by population baseline characteristics and calculation method. In the context of pain, MCID varied based on the quality of pain, chronicity, and treatment options. CONCLUSION MCID evaluates outcomes relative to whether they provide a meaningful change to patients, incorporating the risks and benefits of a treatment. Using MCID in the process of evaluating outcomes helps to avoid the error of interpreting a small but statistically significant outcome difference as being clinically important.