Fig. 6.1
Neurodevelopmental trajectories of epilepsy surgery candidates (Adapted from: van Schooneveld and Braun [18], by indicating proportions of children showing different postoperative cognitive trajectories): A stable development in parallel with healthy peers, no change in IQ scores, B: IQ decline: can indicate loss of skills or slower pace of development compared with healthy peers. C: “catch-up” development at a faster pace than healthy peers, resulting in IQ score increase. The indicated proportions are means derived from Appendix
Only a minority of patients showed a significant drop in IQ or developmental scores, more often in those studies that reported on surgery in younger children. Some authors have commented on those children who experienced a drop in standardized developmental scores (e.g., Ref. [24]) as they nevertheless often do show developmental progress albeit at a slower pace than their healthy peers (see limitations below). On the positive side is that about twice as many patients improved postoperatively than showed cognitive deterioration. Many studies reported a beneficial IQ effect of either surgery or seizure freedom associated with surgery. Nevertheless, the potential benefit of significant seizure reduction has not been sufficiently considered. The impact of AED withdrawal can be demonstrated in some studies but is not universally seen. This is likely due to the coarseness of the AED analysis conducted, e.g., reduction in number of drugs used and the contribution of individual drugs have not been considered. There is nevertheless compelling evidence of AED impacting on cognition [18].
A direct comparison of studies with long- versus short-term follow-up did not support our prediction of improved outcomes with longer follow-up. Although the expected trends were seen, those did not reach significance, perhaps due to the large variability in study characteristics. When taking into account the variability in participant numbers by computing weighted indices, modest support for this association was indeed observed, in particularly when statistically controlling for the large differences in reported seizure freedom between studies (from 35 to 100 %).
A key caveat is that the majority of studies did not specify a minimum follow-up time, which meant that most studies had a mixture of very short and very long postsurgical periods, with the inevitably possibility for bias (see limitations below). Two studies included a minimum follow-up period of over 5 years, but came to different conclusions regarding IQ change [12, 30]. The study of Skirrow and colleagues examined outcome in patients who had undergone temporal lobe surgery in childhood after a mean follow-up of 9 years (range 5–15 years). They report improved IQ in the surgical group, a change not observed in a non-surgery epilepsy control group. Greater IQ improvements were found among patients with lower IQs before surgery. Discontinuation of AEDs was a positive predictor of IQ change. An analysis of interim follow-up data points (available in a proportion of patients only) suggested that the IQ increase was only observed after 6 or more years post-surgery. In contrast, a 10-year follow-up of a heterogeneous cohort of 17 patients (including temporal and extratemporal resections, callosotomy, multiple subpial transections) by Viggedal and colleagues [30] did not report any significant group-level changes in IQ, although the absolute degree of change was similar to that of Skirrow et al. [12]. Notwithstanding the differing study populations (temporal lobectomy vs mixed sample), the cohorts also differed much with respect to seizure freedom (86 % vs 35 %) and proportion of AED discontinuation (57 % vs 18 %). The discrepancy in study conclusions is not incompatible with the impact of those postoperative factors as demonstrated above.
Limitations and Recommendations
The large number of studies reporting on a mixture of early and later surgeries as well as multiple surgical targets (including focal resection and palliative procedures) severely limits the level of inference that can be drawn from this chapter. Furthermore, in contrast to studies of adult surgical patients, the investigation of children is complicated by the fact that epilepsy and surgery interact with rapid brain development. The inclusion of a nonsurgical control group, matched for basic illness characteristics at baseline assessment, would allow one to estimate the developmental trajectory without surgical intervention. In addition, such group is also helpful for estimation of retest effects and changes in test versions with progression into adulthood. Unfortunately, such comparison groups, however imperfect they might be, are rarely included in follow-up studies. In addition, a healthy control group (preferably siblings or otherwise closely matched, see Ref. [37]) would allow an estimation to which degree a restoration of the normal developmental trajectory can be achieved, which has not been reported for surgical samples.
The mode of participant recruitment is seldom clearly stated, and the inclusion of a very wide range of follow-up periods (months to over 10 years) suggests that retrospective chart review is the main source of data points. Neuropsychological assessments are often requested for clinical indication which can bias the sample toward the more severe end of the clinical and neuropsychiatric spectrum [6]. Few studies report on the representativeness of their sample for the wider clinical population seen at each institution. Finally, due to restrictions in sample size, the joint statistical estimation of different etiological and clinical factors such as duration of epilepsy, age at surgery, seizure control, and AED withdrawal is often not possible. Hence the inference made here about the impact of these factors is likely to be biased and limited. One more time we need to repeat the call made previously by Smith et al. [10] that better designed studies are urgently needed.
Nevertheless, the emerging evidence from the recent literature reviewed here and previously [10, 18] suggests that the majority of children show a stabilization of their cognitive trajectory after surgical treatment and that a significant proportion even do show signs of cognitive “catch-up.” The degree of improvement appears to be correlated with postoperative seizure control and to some degree with antiepileptic medication reduction. There is suggestive evidence that compensatory processes for memory functions after temporal surgery are completed after 1–2 years, while change in intellectual functions require a more prolonged period of brain development unencumbered by seizure activity and polypharmacy. The impact of clinical factors which are likely to interact with developmental changes in brain plasticity, such as age at surgery and the extent of resection, requires further research.
Appendix. Summary of Study Characteristics and Results from Short- and Long-Term Cognitive Outcome Series in Children [9, 12, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, 38–61]
Authors (year) [Ref.] | Number of participants (% of total sample) | Mean age, in years (range or sd) | Type of surgery | Measure | Individual change | Groupwise IQ/DQ change (significance level, if reported) | Seizure free (%) | Postsurgical cognitive follow-up duration, in years (range) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Epilepsy onset (range) | Surgery (range) | Criteria | Decline (%) | Increase (%) | |||||||
Recent short-term follow-up studies (since 2011) with predominantly focal resections, including mixed surgical groups | |||||||||||
Ramantani et al. (2014) [38] | 21 | 7.9 (0–15) | 11.7 (0–15) | 5 T, 12 TO, 9 F, 3P (all for glioneuronal tumors) | IQ | 10 IQ points* | 9.5 | 33.3 | 4.4 (p = 0.052) | 86 | 1.8 (0–5) |
Guan et al. (2014) [39] | 16 (80 %) | 5.7 (1–17) | 8.9 (2–20) | 20 H | IQ | – | – | – | 6.8 (p < .001) | 80 | 1.0 (−) |
Meekes et al. (2013) [9] | 21 (100 %) | 7.3 (0–13) | 13.9 (8–18) | 21 T | VIQ | – | – | – | 3.0 (n.s) | 86 | 2.0 (−) |
Lew et al. (2013) [40] | 27 (54 %) | 2.1 (0–13) | 9.1 (0–21) | 27 H | IQ | ≥1 sd change | 18.5 | 3.5 | −2.5 (n.s.) | 80 | 3.5 (0–7) |
Oitment et al. (2013) [33] | 75 | 6.0 (sd 4.2) | 12.7 (−) | 41 T, 13 ET, 21 ML | IQ | – | – | – | −1.2 (−) | 56 | 1.5 (sd 1.0) |
Viggedal et al. (2013) [41] | 94 (100 %) | 4.9 (−) | 11 (0–18) | 31 T, 20 F, 7 P, 3 O, 12 ML, 10 H, 7 C, 2 Dis, 2 MST | IQ/DQ | – | – | – | −3.0 (median) (−) | 50 | 2.0 (−) |
Villarejo-Ortega et al. (2013) [42] | 17 (100 %) | 5.4 (0–8) | 7.6 (1–10) | 17 H | IQ/DQ | 10 IQ/DQ points | 17.6 | 5.9 | −2.6 (n.s) | 67 | 3.1 (1–5) |
Ramantani et al. (2013) [24] | 28 (93 %) | 0.4 (0–1) | 1.7 (0–2) | 4 T, 5 ET, 5 ML, 14 H | IQ | Categorical change | 25 | 0 | – (−) | 70 | 1.3 (0–2) |
Wethe et al. (2013) [43] | 12 | 0.8 (0–5) | 12.2 (3–39) | Hypothalamic hamartoma resection | IQ | Reliable change indices | 0 | 42 | 8.3 (p = .001) | 69 | 2.0 (0–3) |
Fay-McClymont et al. (2012) [44] | 13 (31 %) | 1.4 (0–16) | 10.8 (4–16) | 3 T, 4 F, 1P (all for DNT) | IQ | Reliable change indices | 15.4 | 15.4 | – (−) | 92 | 1.4 (0–2) |
Liang et al. (2012) [45] | 206 (100 %) | 3.6 (−) | 11.3 (6–14) | 84 T, 75 F, 14 O, 9 P, 24 ML (additional C in 28 cases) | IQ | ≥10 % Change of preoperative scores | 5.3 | 40.3 | 6.9 (−) | 72 | 1.0 (−) |
D’Argenzio et al. (2011) [46] | 31 (46 %) | – | – | 47 F, 13 P, 6 O | VIQ/DQ | 15 IQ points | 16.1 | 9.6 | −4.4 (n.s) | 52 | 1.6 (0–7) |
Chieffo et al. (2011) [47] | 24 (100 %) | 5.6 (0–14) | 7.5 (1–17) | 12 F 12 T | IQ/DQ | 10 IQ points | 20.8 | – | – (−) | 92 | 2.1 (1–7) |
Datta et al. (2011) [48] | 57 | – (0–16) | 11.7 (3–17) | 30 T, 11 F, 7 P, 3 O, 9 ML, 1 C | IQ | – | – | – | 0.0 (n.s) | 67 | – (all ≥1 year) |
Garcia-Fernandez et al. (2011) [49] | 21 | 7.14 (sd 4.93) | 11.4 (2–19) | 13 T, 2 F, 2 PR, 1 O, 1 P, 2 PC | IQ | 10 IQ points* | 19.1 | 28.5 | 3.4 (n.s) | 86 | 1.0 (1–1) |
Thomas et al. (2010) [25] | 16 | 3.4 (0–11) | 6.6 (0–13) | 14 H, 2 Q | IQ | – | – | – | 0.2 (n.s.) | 94 | 3.0 (3–3) |
Liang et al. (2010a) [50] | 25 | 1.8 (0–13) | 14.0 (6–23) | 17 resective surgeries, 8 resections + C all for tuberous sclerosis | IQ | – | – | – | 5.6 (p < .01)a | 60 | 2.0 (2–2) |
Liang et al. (2010b) [51] | 60 | 3.3 (0–13) | 16.7 (6–29) | 30 T and 30 T + C | IQ | +4 and −2 IQ points | 16.7 | 60 | 2.2 (n.s.) | 67 | 2.0 (2–2) |
Boshuisen et al. (2010) [52] | 34 (79 %) | 1.2 (0–11) | 4.1 (0–14) | 34 H | IQ/DQ | 10 IQ points | 8.8 | 26.5 | –
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |