Curry, Daniel J.

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.