Jiang, Yuwu

Abstract Objective Invasive presurgical evaluation plays a key role in pediatric epilepsy surgery, particularly in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐negative cases, by guiding resective, disconnective, or ablative procedures. This International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery Taskforce study provides an updated global overview of current invasive evaluation practices. Methods Group‐level data were collected from 61 epilepsy surgery programs (49 pediatric‐only) in 29 countries across six continents. Included were children and adolescents who underwent presurgical evaluation and epilepsy surgery in 2023. The study was designed to enable comparison with the similar ILAE survey conducted in 2004. Results A total of 2427 patients were included. Invasive evaluations were performed in 21.1% of cases, most frequently in North America (33.7%, higher than Europe: 18.0%, p = .003). Among invasive cases, 32.3% had no detectable MRI abnormalities. The main indication for invasive evaluation was seizure onset localization (88.1%), followed by motor or sensory mapping (17.2%) and language mapping (14.2%). Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) was the predominant technique (19.8% overall, 93.6% of invasive cases), more common in North America (30.0%, p = .021) and less common in South America (7.4%, p < .001). Subdural electrodes were used in only 3.2% of invasive cases, and combined depth and subdural approaches in 3.2%. SEEG‐guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (RF‐TC) was performed in 40.9% of SEEG cases, most commonly in Asia (63.8%). In 16.2% of invasive evaluations, patients did not proceed to resection, disconnection, or ablation, with the highest rate in Europe (28.5%). Significance This global survey provides the first broad overview of invasive evaluation practices in pediatric epilepsy surgery across participating centers worldwide. It highlights the widespread adoption of SEEG, declining use of subdural electrodes, and increasing application of SEEG‐guided RF‐TC. The high proportion of MRI‐negative cases and the considerable proportion of patients not proceeding to resection, disconnection, or ablation underscore the complexity of contemporary surgical candidates and the need for further refinement of selection strategies.

Abstract A variety of terms, such as “antiepileptic,” “anticonvulsant,” and “antiseizure” have been historically applied to medications for the treatment of seizure disorders. Terminology is important because using terms that do not accurately reflect the action of specific treatments may result in a misunderstanding of their effects and inappropriate use. The present International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) position paper used a Delphi approach to develop recommendations on English‐language terminology applicable to pharmacological agents currently approved for treating seizure disorders. There was consensus that these medications should be collectively named “antiseizure medications”. This term accurately reflects their primarily symptomatic effect against seizures and reduces the possibility of health care practitioners, patients, or caregivers having undue expectations or an incorrect understanding of the real action of these medications. The term “antiseizure” to describe these agents does not exclude the possibility of beneficial effects on the course of the disease and comorbidities that result from the downstream effects of seizures, whenever these beneficial effects can be explained solely by the suppression of seizure activity. It is acknowledged that other treatments, mostly under development, can exert direct favorable actions on the underlying disease or its progression, by having “antiepileptogenic” or “disease‐modifying” effects. A more‐refined terminology to describe precisely these actions needs to be developed.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on global access to care and practice patterns for children with epilepsy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, online survey of pediatric neurologists across the world affiliated with the International Child Neurology Association, the Chinese Child Neurology Society, the Child Neurology Society, and the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium. Results were analyzed in relation to regional burden of COVID-19 disease. Results: From April 10 to 24, 2020, a sample of 212 respondents from 49 countries indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed many aspects of pediatric epilepsy care, with 91.5% reporting changes to outpatient care, 90.6% with reduced access to electroencephalography (EEG), 37.4% with altered management of infantile spasms, 92.3% with restrictions in ketogenic diet initiation, 93.4% with closed or severely limited epilepsy monitoring units, and 91.3% with canceled or limited epilepsy surgery. Telehealth use had increased, with 24.7% seeing patients exclusively via telehealth. Changes in practice were related both to COVID-19 burden and location. Conclusions: In response to COVID-19, pediatric epilepsy programs have implemented crisis standards of care that include increased telemedicine, decreased EEG use, changes in treatments of infantile spasms, and cessation of epilepsy surgery. The long-term impact of these abrupt changes merit careful study.