Abstract
Objectives Both Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) are used in presurgical epilepsy assessment, with contrasting advantages and limitations. It is not known whether combined recording using both modalities can maintain inherent advantages whilst overcoming these limitations e.g. recording from deep brain sources whilst preserving good spatial resolution.
Methods 24 adult and paediatric patients who underwent SEEG study for pre-surgical evaluation of focal drug-resistant epilepsy, were recorded using simultaneous SEEG-MEG, of which 14 had abnormal interictal activity during recording. The 14 patients were divided into two groups; those with presumed superficial (n=7) and deep (n=7) brain interictal activity.
Results There was no significant difference between SEEG and MEG in identifying superficial spikes (p=0.135) and SEEG was significantly better at detecting deep spikes (p=0.002). Mean distance across patients between SEEG channel with highest average spike amplitude and MEG dipole was 26.6+/-3.6 mm for superficial sources, and 21.5 +/- 2.04 mm for deep sources, even though for some of the latter (n=4) no MEG spikes were detected and MEG dipole was fitted to a SEEG interictal activity triggered average. Removal of MEG dipole was associated with 1 year seizure freedom in 5/6 patients with superficial source, and 4/6 patients with deep source.
Conclusions Although SEEG has greater sensitivity in identifying interictal activity from deeper sources, an MEG source can be localised using SEEG information, thereby providing useful whole brain context to SEEG and potential role in epilepsy surgery planning.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
MCW and UV are funded by NIHR and UV is also funded by Epilepsy Research UK and Academy of Medical Sciences. VL is funded by Wellcome and CC is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
All authors report no disclosures
Data Availability
Anonymized data will be shared by request from any qualified investigat
