Richardson, Robert Mark

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of responsive thalamic stimulation as adjunctive therapy for drug‐resistant idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) with generalized tonic–clonic seizures (GTCSs). Methods NAUTILUS is a prospective, multicenter, single‐blind, randomized sham‐controlled pivotal trial. Patients were ≥12 years of age with drug‐resistant IGE and ≥2 GTCSs over a 3‐month baseline. Bilateral depth leads were targeted to the centromedian thalamus. One month later, patients were randomized to Active (responsive stimulation, n = 44) or Sham (no stimulation, n = 43). The effectiveness evaluation period (EEP) began 3 months postimplant through 1 year. After a second GTCS in the EEP, patients transitioned to open‐label active stimulation. The primary safety endpoint was the serious adverse device‐related event (SADE) rate at 84 days postimplant. The primary effectiveness endpoint was time‐to‐second‐GTCS during the EEP. Additional endpoints included median percent change in days with any generalized seizure, GTCS frequency, and responder rate (RR). Results Eighty‐seven patients were implanted across 23 US centers. The SADE rate was significantly below the performance goal (6.9%, p < .0001), with no adverse effects on cognition, mood, or sleep. The prespecified primary effectiveness endpoint was not significant. However, a post hoc mixed‐effects model considering all EEP days demonstrated greater GTCS reduction in the originally randomized Active group (61%) compared to patients originally randomized to Sham (49%, p = .030). Eighteen‐month outcomes included 76.8% median GTCS reduction, 62.5% RR, 40% GTCS‐free at that timepoint, and 77.8% median reduction in days with any generalized seizure. More than 90% of patients and 86% of physicians reported improvement on Global Impression of Change scales. Significance NAUTILUS is the first randomized controlled neuromodulation trial in IGE. Responsive thalamic stimulation provided a clinically meaningful and durable reduction in seizures with an acceptable safety profile, offering a much‐needed option for drug‐resistant IGE.

Thalamic neuromodulation for drug-resistant epilepsy has evolved from ablative thalamotomy to network-guided deep-brain stimulation (DBS) and responsive neurostimulation (RNS). Currently, the only Food and Drug Administration-approved DBS target is the anterior thalamic nucleus, which provides substantial and durable seizure reduction, particularly in limbic and temporal epilepsies. There is growing evidence that the centromedian and pulvinar nuclei are implicated in generalized, multifocal, and posterior neocortical epilepsies. Advanced imaging, probabilistic atlases, and connectomics can be used to refine targeting; however, they are limited by patient specificity, acquisition burden, and interatlas variability. Thalamic stereoelectroencephalography may clarify potential neuromodulation target selection by characterizing ictal recruitment, network dynamics, and biomarkers. Although DBS and RNS each have unique benefits, no modality has demonstrated superior. Pediatric data are heterogeneous and scarcer, but seizure reduction and safety profiles are similar to adults. Further studies are needed to optimize neuromodulation target selection and programming paradigms.

Understanding the evolution of clinical tools and models of care is fundamental to advancing the field of epilepsy. The 2025 American Epilepsy Society Annual Course examined the expanding spectrum of epilepsy care through the integration of multispecialty collaboration, innovative diagnostic modalities, and surgical and nonsurgical therapeutic interventions. The course underscored significant global advancements in epilepsy research and practice. This comprehensive review synthesizes key educational insights from the program, offering a critical perspective on the ongoing transformation of epilepsy care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic procedures are used to manage a diverse set of patients across a variety of clinical contexts. The stereotactic devices and software used in these procedures vary between surgeons, but the fundamental principles that constitute safe and accurate execution do not. The aim of this work is to describe these principles to equip readers with a generalizable knowledge base to execute and understand stereotactic procedures. METHODS: A combination of a review of the literature and empirical experience from several experienced surgeons led to the creation of this work. Thus, this work is descriptive and qualitative by nature, and the literature is used to support instead of generate the ideas of this framework. RESULTS: The principles detailed in this work are categorized based on 5 clinical domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. Illustrations and tables are used throughout to convey the concepts in an efficient manner. CONCLUSION: Stereotactic procedures are complex, requiring a thorough understanding of each step of the workflow. The concepts described in this work enable functional neurosurgeons with the fundamental knowledge necessary to provide optimal patient care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identifying and characterizing sources of targeting error in stereotactic procedures is essential to maximizing accuracy, potentially improving surgical outcomes. We aim to describe a generic framework which characterizes sources of stereotactic inaccuracy. METHODS: We assembled a list of stereotactic systems: ROSA, Neuromate, Mazor Renaissance, ExcelsiusGPS, Cirq, STarFix (FHC), Nexframe, ClearPoint, CRW, and Leksell. We searched the literature for qualitative and quantitative work identifying and quantifying potential sources of inaccuracy and describing each system's implementation using Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Our literature search spanned 1969 to 2024, and various studies were included, with formats ranging from phantom studies to systematic reviews. Keyword searches were conducted, and the details about each system were used to create a framework for identifying and describing the unique targeting error profile of each system. RESULTS: We describe and illustrate the details of various sources of stereotactic inaccuracies and generate a framework to unify these sources into a single framework. This framework entails 5 domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. This framework was applied to 10 stereotactic systems. CONCLUSION: This framework provides a rubric to analyze the sources of error for any stereotactic system. Illustrations allow the reader to understand sources of error conceptually so that they may apply them to their practice.

Abstract We evaluated whether spike ripples, the combination of epileptiform spikes and ripples, provide a reliable and improved biomarker for the epileptogenic zone compared with other leading interictal biomarkers in a multicentre, international study. We first validated an automated spike ripple detector on intracranial EEG recordings. We then applied this detector to subjects from four centres who subsequently underwent surgical resection with known 1-year outcomes. We evaluated the spike ripple rate in subjects cured after resection [International League Against Epilepsy Class 1 outcome (ILAE 1)] and those with persistent seizures (ILAE 2–6) across sites and recording types. We also evaluated available interictal biomarkers: spike, spike-gamma, wideband high frequency oscillation (HFO, 80–500 Hz), ripple (80–250 Hz) and fast ripple (250–500 Hz) rates using previously validated automated detectors. The proportion of resected events was computed and compared across subject outcomes and biomarkers. Overall, 109 subjects were included. Most spike ripples were removed in subjects with ILAE 1 outcome (P &lt; 0.001), and this was qualitatively observed across all sites and for depth and subdural electrodes (P &lt; 0.001 and P &lt; 0.001, respectively). Among ILAE 1 subjects, the mean spike ripple rate was higher in the resected volume (0.66/min) than in the non-removed tissue (0.08/min, P &lt; 0.001). A higher proportion of spike ripples were removed in subjects with ILAE 1 outcomes compared with ILAE 2–6 outcomes (P = 0.06). Among ILAE 1 subjects, the proportion of spike ripples removed was higher than the proportion of spikes (P &lt; 0.001), spike-gamma (P &lt; 0.001), wideband HFOs (P &lt; 0.001), ripples (P = 0.009) and fast ripples (P = 0.009) removed. At the individual level, more subjects with ILAE 1 outcomes had the majority of spike ripples removed (79%, 38/48) than spikes (69%, P = 0.12), spike-gamma (69%, P = 0.12), wideband HFOs (63%, P = 0.03), ripples (45%, P = 0.01) or fast ripples (36%, P &lt; 0.001) removed. Thus, in this large, multicentre cohort, when surgical resection was successful, the majority of spike ripples were removed. Furthermore, automatically detected spike ripples localize the epileptogenic tissue better than spikes, spike-gamma, wideband HFOs, ripples and fast ripples.

Abstract Epilepsy is well-recognized as a disorder of brain networks. There is a growing body of research to identify critical nodes within dynamic epileptic networks with the aim to target therapies that halt the onset and propagation of seizures. In parallel, intracranial neuromodulation, including deep brain stimulation and responsive neurostimulation, are well-established and expanding as therapies to reduce seizures in adults with focal-onset epilepsy; and there is emerging evidence for their efficacy in children and generalized-onset seizure disorders. The convergence of these advancing fields is driving an era of ‘network-guided neuromodulation’ for epilepsy. In this review, we distil the current literature on network mechanisms underlying neurostimulation for epilepsy. We discuss the modulation of key ‘propagation points’ in the epileptogenic network, focusing primarily on thalamic nuclei targeted in current clinical practice. These include (i) the anterior nucleus of thalamus, now a clinically approved and targeted site for open loop stimulation, and increasingly targeted for responsive neurostimulation; and (ii) the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus, a target for both deep brain stimulation and responsive neurostimulation in generalized-onset epilepsies. We discuss briefly the networks associated with other emerging neuromodulation targets, such as the pulvinar of the thalamus, piriform cortex, septal area, subthalamic nucleus, cerebellum and others. We report synergistic findings garnered from multiple modalities of investigation that have revealed structural and functional networks associated with these propagation points — including scalp and invasive EEG, and diffusion and functional MRI. We also report on intracranial recordings from implanted devices which provide us data on the dynamic networks we are aiming to modulate. Finally, we review the continuing evolution of network-guided neuromodulation for epilepsy to accelerate progress towards two translational goals: (i) to use pre-surgical network analyses to determine patient candidacy for neurostimulation for epilepsy by providing network biomarkers that predict efficacy; and (ii) to deliver precise, personalized and effective antiepileptic stimulation to prevent and arrest seizure propagation through mapping and modulation of each patients’ individual epileptogenic networks.