Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorErturk Cetin, Ozdem
dc.contributor.authorBebek, Nerses
dc.contributor.authorSirin, Nermin Görkem
dc.contributor.authorElmali, Ayse Deniz
dc.contributor.authorBaykan, Betül
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-10T11:52:16Z
dc.date.available2021-12-10T11:52:16Z
dc.identifier.citationErturk Cetin O., Sirin N. G. , Elmali A. D. , Baykan B., Bebek N., "Different faces of frontal lobe epilepsy: The clinical, electrophysiologic, and imaging experience of a tertiary center.", Clinical neurology and neurosurgery, cilt.203, ss.106532, 2021
dc.identifier.issn0303-8467
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.otherav_9aa1362d-444e-4230-97c7-25cee7b5d5ff
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/172808
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106532
dc.description.abstractObjective: Frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) is the second most common epilepsy among drug-resistant focal epilepsies. Semiologic and electrophysiologic features of FLE present some difficulties because frontal lobe seizures are brief, accompanied by complex motor activities and emotional signs. The rich connectivity of the frontal lobe with other areas leads to the rapid and widespread propagation of seizure activity, which contribute to the difficulty of evaluating the semiologic and EEG patterns of the seizure. In this study, we investigated semiologic, interictal, ictal, and postictal EEG characteristics; the imaging data of patients with FLE and the possible contribution of these data to localization and lateralization of seizures. Materials and methods: The medical records of patients who were diagnosed as having FLE between 2010 and 2019 in our clinic were evaluated retrospectively. The diagnosis of FLE was considered either when patients had a structural lesion in the frontal region or seizure semiology and EEG characteristics were compatible with FLE. Clinical, electrophysiologic, and imaging features were investigated in these patients. Results: We have evaluated 146 seizures in 36 patients (17 lesional and 19 non-lesional according to MRI). There were 110 focal motor or nonmotor seizures, 18 bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 18 subclinical seizures. There were 16 patients with aura. The most common semiologic feature was hyperkinetic movements. Among the interictal EEGs, 30.5 % included focal anomalies. Among the ictal EEGs, 69.1 % were non-localizing or lateralizing. The most common ictal pattern was rhythmic theta activity (21.2 %). In four patients, who had nonlocalizing or lateralizing EEG, the postictal EEG was informative. Our study showed a low percentage of localized FDG-PET, which, however, involved visual analysis. Conclusion: Our results support the previously known difficulties in the determination of the epileptogenic zone of FLE. Semiologic and electrophysiologic correlation studies, longer postictal records, and quantitative analysis of FDG-PET may contribute to a better characterization of the disease.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectKLİNİK NEUROLOJİ
dc.subjectCERRAHİ
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.titleDifferent faces of frontal lobe epilepsy: The clinical, electrophysiologic, and imaging experience of a tertiary center.
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalClinical neurology and neurosurgery
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Üniversitesi , İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi , Dahili Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü
dc.identifier.volume203
dc.identifier.startpage106532
dc.identifier.endpage106532
dc.contributor.firstauthorID2604957


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record