This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Epilepsy  • Surgery  • Neurosurgery  • Diagnosis  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Howan Leung, MD; Kaspar Schindler, MD, PhD; Hans Clusmann, MD; Christian G. Bien, MD, PhD; Annkathrin Pöpel, MD; Johannes Schramm, MD; Patrick Kwan, MD, PhD; Lawrence K. S. Wong, MD; Christian E. Elger, MD, PhD

Arch Neurol. 2008;65(1):71-77.

Objective  To evaluate the clinical utility of mesial frontal semiology.

Design  Retrospective case series.

Setting  Tertiary epilepsy referral center.

Patients  Part 1 of the study involved 152 patients who underwent frontal lobe surgery. Part 2 involved 253 patients who underwent non–frontal lobe surgery.

Main Outcome Measures  Inclusion criteria for both parts of the study were seizure localization by analysis of resection margins (mesial frontal, lateral frontal, orbitofrontal, nonfrontal) or intracranial exploration and an Engel class I outcome. In part 1, 84 patients had their habitual seizures analyzed by video encephalography using a semiology checklist of 47 items during the early phase (electrographic onset to 10 seconds) and late phase (rest of episode). Localization semiology was analyzed by ² test with Bonferroni correction and cluster analysis when occurrence exceeded 10% in at least 1 region. In part 2, 144 patients had their habitual seizures screened with mesial frontal semiology from the first part of study during the early phase only.

Results  In part 1 of the study, the statistically significant localizing semiology for the mesial frontal region in the early phase was ictal body turning along the horizontal axis (57% of patients), crawling (57% of patients), restlessness (64.3% of patients), facial expressions of anxiety (42.9% of patients) and fear (35.7% of patients), grimacing produced by bilateral facial contraction (42.9% of patients), barking (32.1% of patients), head shaking (25% of patients), and pelvic raising (25% of patients) (all P < .001). In the late phase, recurrent utterance (21.4% of patients) was the additional statistically significant item (P < .002). In part 2 of the study, ictal body turning along the horizontal axis gave a 55.2% positive predictive value, which improved to 85.7% when clustered with restlessness, facial expressions of anxiety and fear, and barking.

Conclusions  Ictal body turning along the horizontal body axis and semiology with physiological movement are not only prevalent semiology items of mesial frontal lobe epilepsy but they distinguish mesial frontal from lateral frontal and orbitofrontal seizures.

Author Affiliations: Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong (Drs Leung, Kwan, and Wong); and University Departments of Epileptology (Drs Leung, Schindler, Bien, Pöpel, and Elger) and Neurosurgery (Drs Clusmann and Schramm), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?