Cortical Stimulation for brain mapping and seizure stimulation, pediatric practices throughout Canada: A national survey and systematic literature review
Language English Country France Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Systematic Review
PubMed
39922024
DOI
10.1016/j.neucli.2025.103043
PII: S0987-7053(25)00002-4
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Brain mapping, Canada, Electrical cortical stimulation, Electroencephalography, Epilepsy, Intracranial EEG, National survey, Pediatric, SEEG, Systematic literature review,
- MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Electroencephalography methods MeSH
- Electrocorticography * methods MeSH
- Epilepsy * diagnosis physiopathology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Brain Mapping * methods MeSH
- Cerebral Cortex * physiopathology MeSH
- Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
- Seizures * diagnosis physiopathology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
- Geographicals
- Canada MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic cortical stimulation (CS) in intracranial electroencephalography (iEEG) is an established epilepsy presurgical assessment tool to delineate relevant brain functions and elicit habitual epileptic seizures. Currently, no consensus exists as to whether CS should be routinely performed in pediatric patients. A significant challenge is their limited ability to cooperate during the procedure or to describe non-observable seizure semiology features. Our goal was to identify the spectrum of CS practices in Canada, for both eloquent cortex mapping and seizure stimulation. METHODS: An online survey, answered by all 8 Canadian pediatric epilepsy centers, enquired about implantation, stimulation methods, and use of standardized protocols. A systematic literature review extracted detailed stimulation parameters. RESULTS: Most of the institutions (n = 7/8) reported performing CS during presurgical evaluation. Four institutions indicated they perform stimulation in all implanted patients for the purpose of eloquent cortex mapping and seizure stimulation. The majority of physicians had their individual approach to CS. A largely variable approach to CS, mainly in the choice of stimulation parameters (i.e., train and pulse duration), was observed, with the highest variance concerning the purpose of seizure stimulation. The literature review highlighted an overall small sample size and minimal number of publications. Even though there is a rising trend towards stereotactic iEEG implantation, more data were available on subdural EEGs. CONCLUSION: This study shows individual and sparsely validated approach to CS in pediatric epilepsy. The literature review underscores the urgent need to harmonize pediatric intracranial EEG practices. More multicenter studies are needed to identify safe stimulation thresholds and allow implementation of evidence-based guidelines.
McGill University Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre Montreal Canada
Université de Montréal CHU Sainte Justine Montréal Canada
Université de Sherbrooke Centre de neurosciences Sherbrooke Canada
University of Alberta Department of Pediatrics Edmonton Canada
University of British Columbia Pediatric Neurology Vancouver Canada
University of Manitoba Max Rady College of Medicine Rady Faculty of Health Sciences Winnipeg Canada
University of Toronto The Hospital for Sick Children Toronto Canada
University of Western Ontario London Health Sciences Centre London Canada
References provided by Crossref.org