Sensitivity of Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Evaluating Tool in Patients Presenting with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Taimoor  Saleem; Bassam  Khalid; Mehmood  Hussain; Umer  Naseer; Ali  Yousaf; Khurram Haq  Nawaz

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v75iSUPPL-2.9956

Authors

Taimoor Saleem Department of General Medicine, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Bassam Khalid Department of General Medicine, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Mehmood Hussain Department of General Medicine, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Umer Naseer Department of General Medicine, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Ali Yousaf Department of Neurology, Combined Military Hospital Lahore/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan
Khurram Haq Nawaz Department of Neurology, Combined Military Hospital Quetta/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v75iSUPPL-2.9956

Keywords:

Epilepsy, EEG, MRI, PEMH, Tumor

Abstract

Objective: To establish the sensitivity of MRI brain in diagnosing temporal lobe epilepsy.

Study Design: Cross sectional study.

Place and Duration of Study: Neurology Department Pak Emirates Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jan 2021 to Dec 2021

Methodology: Non-randomized convenient sampling was done.110 patients (55 in each group) were enrolled. All MRIs were reported by senior radiologists who were blinded regarding patients’ history. All MRIs were done using epilepsy protocol. Independent sample t test was used to compare means between two groups and Chi square test was used to assess relationship between categorical variables

Results: A total of 110 individuals were enrolled in this study. Mean age of study population was 38.91±12.52 years with 67(63.81%) males and 48(36.19%) females. Two by two table analysis was done, and it revealed a sensitivity of 42.31% and Specificity of 94.34% of MRI as a diagnostic tool in temporal lobe epilepsy.

Conclusion: TLE is a prevalent disease which in majority of cases is diagnosed accurately on clinical criteria. MRI brain with epilepsy protocol might be used if there is any diagnostic uncertainty.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sander JW, Bell GS. Reducing mortality: an important aim of epilepsy management. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 2004; 75(3): 349-351.

Khatri IA, Iannaccone ST, Ilyas MS, Abdullah M, Saleem S. Epidemiology of epilepsy in Pakistan: review of literature. Journal-pakistan medical association 2003; 53(12): 594-596.

Fisher RS, Stein A, Karis J. Epilepsy for the neuroradiologist. AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology 1997; 18(5): 851.

Bronen RA, Fulbright RK, Kim JH, Spencer SS, Spencer DD. A systematic approach for interpreting MR images of the seizure patient. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 1997; 169(1): 241-247.

Van Paesschen W. Qualitative and quantitative imaging of the hippocampus in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clinics 2004; 14(3): 373-400.

Bonilha L, Halford JJ, Rorden C, Roberts DR, Rumboldt Z, Eckert MA. Automated MRI analysis for identification of hippocampal atrophy in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2009; 50(2): 228-233.

McIntosh WC, Das JM. Temporal Seizure [Internet]. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 10]. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549852/

Primrose DC. Outcome of resective surgery for temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy surgery 1992: 601-611.

Mesraoua B, Deleu D, Al Hail HJ, et al. Prevalence and Incidence of Drug-Resistant Temporal Lobe Epilepsy in Qatar. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis 2020; 12: 1179573520935031.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1179573520935031

. Diehl BE, Duncan JS. Temporal lobe epilepsy. From Science to Society. Oxford, http://www. epilepsysociety. org. uk. 2011.

Gilani A, Nawaz KH, Hassan Z, Yousaf MA, Hashmat A, Arif S. Frequency And Factors Of Non-Compliance Among Epileptic Patients. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2021; 71 (3): 929-932.

Siddiqui F, Sultan T, Mustafa S, Siddiqui S, Ali S, Malik A, et al. Epilepsy in Pakistan: national guidelines for clinicians. Pak J Neurol Sci 2015; 10(3): 47-62.

Camacho DL, Castillo M. MR imaging of temporal lobe epilepsy. In Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 2007: 28(6): 424-436.

Privitera MD, Morris GL, Gilliam F. Postictal language assessment and lateralization of complex partial seizures. Annals of Neurology: Ann Neurol 1991; 30(3): 391-396.

Granados A, Orejuela J and Rodriguez-Takeuchi S. Neuroimaging evaluation in refractory epilepsy. Neuroradiol J 2015; 28: 529–535.

Schorner W, Meencke HJ, Felix R. Temporal-lobe epilepsy: comparison of CT and MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 149(6): 1231-1239.

Van Paesschen W: Qualitative and quantitative imaging of the hippocampus in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 14(3): 373-400.

Spencer SS: When should temporal-lobe epilepsy be treated surgically? Lancet Neurol 2002: 1(6): 375-382.

McBride MC, Bronstein KS, Bennett B, Erba G, Pilcher W, Berg MJ: Failure of standard magnetic resonance imaging in patients with refractory temporal lobe epilepsy. Arch Neurol 1998: 55(3): 346-348.

Von Oertzen J, Urbach H, Jungbluth S, Kurthen M, Reuber M, Fernandez G, et al. Standard magnetic resonance imaging is inadequate for patients with refractory focal epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002: 73(6): 643-647.

Khatri IA, Iannaccone ST, Ilyas MS, Abdullah M, Saleem S. Epidemiology of epilepsy in Pakistan: review of literature. J Pak Med Assoc 2003; 53(12): 594-596.

Hakimi AS, Spanaki MV, Schuh LA, Smith BJ, Schultz L. A survey of neurologists’ views on epilepsy surgery and medically refractory epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior 2008; 13(1): 96-101.

Whitehead K, O'Sullivan S, Walker M. Impact of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures on epilepsy pre-surgical investigation and surgical outcomes. Epilepsy & Behavior 2015; 46: 246-248