Epilepsy Curr. 2013 Sep;13(5):198-204. doi: 10.5698/1535-7597-13.5.198.
Epilepsy currents
J Engel
PMID: 24348103 PMCID: PMC3854719 DOI: 10.5698/1535-7597-13.5.198
Surgical treatment for epilepsy has made tremendous strides in the past few decades as a result of advances in neurodiagnostics-particularly structural and functional neuroimaging-and improved surgical techniques. This has not only resulted in better outcomes with respect to epileptic seizures and quality of life, and reduced surgical morbidity and mortality, but it has also increased the population of patients now considered as surgical candidates, particularly in the pediatric age range, and enhanced cost-effectiveness sufficient to make surgical treatment available to countries with limited resources. Yet surgical treatment for epilepsy remains arguably the most underutilized of all accepted medical interventions. In the United States, less than 1% of patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy are referred to epilepsy centers. Although the number of epilepsy surgery centers has increased appreciably over the past two decades, the number of therapeutic surgical procedures performed for epilepsy has not increased at all. For patients who are referred, the average delay from onset of epilepsy to surgery is more than 20 years-too late for many to avoid a lifetime of disability or premature death. Not only has there been no consistent message to convince neurologists and primary care physicians to refer patients for surgery, but the increase in epilepsy surgery centers in the United States has appeared to result in a divergence of approaches to surgical treatment. Efforts are still needed to further improve the safety and efficacy of surgical treatment, including the identification of biomarkers that can reliably determine the extent of the epileptogenic region; however, the greatest benefits would derive from increasing access for potential surgical candidates to epilepsy surgery facilities. Information is needed to determine why appropriate surgical referrals are not being made. Consensus conferences are necessary to resolve controversies that still exist regarding presurgical evaluation and surgical approaches. Standards should be established for certifying epilepsy centers as recommended by the Institute of Medicine's report on epilepsy. Finally, the epilepsy community should not be promoting epilepsy surgery per se but instead emphasize that epilepsy centers do more than epilepsy surgery, promoting the message: All patients with disabling pharmacoresistant seizures deserve evaluation by specialists at epilepsy centers who can provide a variety of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic services.
