一例同侧癫痫患者的详细描述

H. Onder, F. Tezer
{"title":"一例同侧癫痫患者的详细描述","authors":"H. Onder, F. Tezer","doi":"10.14740/JNR.V9I3.526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A 37-year-old male patient with a history of surgical resection of diffuse astrocytoma right frontoparietal lobe was admitted to our policlinic due to complex partial seizures characterized by focal convulsions on the right hand. Seizures were in the form of convulsions of right hand following a sensation-like ringing in the left ear and were generally lasting for a few minutes resulting in postictal confusion. His seizures had started a few months prior to the diagnosis of astrocytoma 4 months ago. Successful resective surgery was performed and postoperative radiotherapy (1 month after the diagnosis of tumor) was administered. However, he had been having seizures nearly twice a week despite taking the anti-epileptic medication of topiramate 300 mg daily. On neurological examination, he was fully orientated and cooperated. Motor, sensory and cerebellar examinations were within normal limits. Deep tendon reflexes were evaluated as moderately brisk on the left side. Routine electroencephalogram (EEG) showed right centro-parietal paroxysmal disturbances characterized by sharp and slow waves (Fig. 1). Imaging (Fig. 2a, b) and electrophysiological evidence remarked an underlying right hemisphere focus; however, in contrary to this, he suffered from motor seizures of right hand constantly. At this point, to evaluate a possible variation in corticospinal tracts, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was performed which demonstrated bilateral corticospinal tracts with normal crossing at the decussation (Fig. 2c). Carbamazepine 600 mg daily was added to the treatment regimen which provided a significant improvement in seizures and the patient was evaluated as seizure-free on the third month of follow-up. Ipsilateral seizures have been reported very rarely in the literature [1, 2]. In these reports, pathophysiological explanations such as possible anatomical variations in the crossing of pyramidal fibers, one dominant cerebral hemisphere taking over the function of both sides of the body and colosally mediated inhibitory system over the uncrossed pyramidal fibers have been suggested [1]. In our patient, EEG showed epileptiform discharges in the lesional hemisphere. On the other hand, DTI showed normal crossing of bilateral corticospinal tract at the decussation which suggested mechanisms other than variations in the crossing of pyramidal fibers. In the interesting report by Kim et al, the ipsilateral motor pathway from the unaffected motor cortex to the affected hand was demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) method [3]. They remarked the ipsilateral motor pathway as an important mechanism in terms of stroke rehabilitation. They also discussed the possible role of the ipsilateral corticospinal tract and non-corticospinal tract in this finding of ipsilateral motor responses determined in the TMS studies. However, the role of ipsilateral motor activity in the control of upper extremity movements remains controversial [4]. Although there are evidences supporting function of the activation of the ipsilateral motor cortex in motor output of unilateral motor tasks, mechanisms by which the motor cortex innervates the ipsilateral spinal motor neurons and clinical significance of this pathway remain unclear [4, 5]. Forefront hypotheses to explain ipsilateral motor cortex function were: first, via transcallosal interneurons that transmit from the primarily active motor cortex to the contralateral motor cortex; second, possible activation of both hemisphere motor cortex induced by initiation of an action, and subsequent inhibition of the ipsilateral motor cortex by opposite side motor cortex by means of interhemispheric pathways [4, 6]. On the other hand, in literature, left hemisphere has been shown to play a greater role in ipsilateral motor control than the right hemisphere, which was not the case in our report (right hemisphere ipsilateral cerebral event is presented) [7]. Of note, these conclusions are derived from studies conducted on stroke patients and normal individuals, which completely differ from epilepsy in terms of pathophysiology. Hence, at some point, it may not be rational to draw conclusions based on these studies. Nonetheless, reports of studies on epilepsy patients using advanced paraclinical methods still lack in the literature. A crucial discussion may be that possible extension of epileptiform discharges towards contralateral hemisphere might be leading to the ipsilateral tonic-clonic seizures. In this setting, a valid hypothesis of why contralateral seizures had not occurred in our patient may be explained through disturbed corticospinal pathways preventing transformation of ictal activity in the form of clinical contralateral convulsive seizures. Nonetheless, electrophysiological investigations (motorevoked potentials and video EEG monitorization) could not be performed because the patient had not given consent. Hence, these explanations can only be hypothesized. In conclusion, here, we illustrate a strictly interesting patient manifesting with ipsilateral convulsive seizures by detailed clinical as well as DTI and routine EEG findings. Future studies of larger case series using combine para-clinic methods are needed to clarify these arguments. These reports may also provide substantial Manuscript submitted March 22, 2019, accepted April 26, 2019","PeriodicalId":16489,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology Research","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detailed Illustration of a Patient With Ipsilateral Seizures\",\"authors\":\"H. Onder, F. Tezer\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/JNR.V9I3.526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A 37-year-old male patient with a history of surgical resection of diffuse astrocytoma right frontoparietal lobe was admitted to our policlinic due to complex partial seizures characterized by focal convulsions on the right hand. Seizures were in the form of convulsions of right hand following a sensation-like ringing in the left ear and were generally lasting for a few minutes resulting in postictal confusion. His seizures had started a few months prior to the diagnosis of astrocytoma 4 months ago. Successful resective surgery was performed and postoperative radiotherapy (1 month after the diagnosis of tumor) was administered. However, he had been having seizures nearly twice a week despite taking the anti-epileptic medication of topiramate 300 mg daily. On neurological examination, he was fully orientated and cooperated. Motor, sensory and cerebellar examinations were within normal limits. Deep tendon reflexes were evaluated as moderately brisk on the left side. Routine electroencephalogram (EEG) showed right centro-parietal paroxysmal disturbances characterized by sharp and slow waves (Fig. 1). Imaging (Fig. 2a, b) and electrophysiological evidence remarked an underlying right hemisphere focus; however, in contrary to this, he suffered from motor seizures of right hand constantly. At this point, to evaluate a possible variation in corticospinal tracts, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was performed which demonstrated bilateral corticospinal tracts with normal crossing at the decussation (Fig. 2c). Carbamazepine 600 mg daily was added to the treatment regimen which provided a significant improvement in seizures and the patient was evaluated as seizure-free on the third month of follow-up. Ipsilateral seizures have been reported very rarely in the literature [1, 2]. In these reports, pathophysiological explanations such as possible anatomical variations in the crossing of pyramidal fibers, one dominant cerebral hemisphere taking over the function of both sides of the body and colosally mediated inhibitory system over the uncrossed pyramidal fibers have been suggested [1]. In our patient, EEG showed epileptiform discharges in the lesional hemisphere. On the other hand, DTI showed normal crossing of bilateral corticospinal tract at the decussation which suggested mechanisms other than variations in the crossing of pyramidal fibers. In the interesting report by Kim et al, the ipsilateral motor pathway from the unaffected motor cortex to the affected hand was demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) method [3]. They remarked the ipsilateral motor pathway as an important mechanism in terms of stroke rehabilitation. They also discussed the possible role of the ipsilateral corticospinal tract and non-corticospinal tract in this finding of ipsilateral motor responses determined in the TMS studies. However, the role of ipsilateral motor activity in the control of upper extremity movements remains controversial [4]. Although there are evidences supporting function of the activation of the ipsilateral motor cortex in motor output of unilateral motor tasks, mechanisms by which the motor cortex innervates the ipsilateral spinal motor neurons and clinical significance of this pathway remain unclear [4, 5]. Forefront hypotheses to explain ipsilateral motor cortex function were: first, via transcallosal interneurons that transmit from the primarily active motor cortex to the contralateral motor cortex; second, possible activation of both hemisphere motor cortex induced by initiation of an action, and subsequent inhibition of the ipsilateral motor cortex by opposite side motor cortex by means of interhemispheric pathways [4, 6]. On the other hand, in literature, left hemisphere has been shown to play a greater role in ipsilateral motor control than the right hemisphere, which was not the case in our report (right hemisphere ipsilateral cerebral event is presented) [7]. Of note, these conclusions are derived from studies conducted on stroke patients and normal individuals, which completely differ from epilepsy in terms of pathophysiology. Hence, at some point, it may not be rational to draw conclusions based on these studies. Nonetheless, reports of studies on epilepsy patients using advanced paraclinical methods still lack in the literature. A crucial discussion may be that possible extension of epileptiform discharges towards contralateral hemisphere might be leading to the ipsilateral tonic-clonic seizures. In this setting, a valid hypothesis of why contralateral seizures had not occurred in our patient may be explained through disturbed corticospinal pathways preventing transformation of ictal activity in the form of clinical contralateral convulsive seizures. Nonetheless, electrophysiological investigations (motorevoked potentials and video EEG monitorization) could not be performed because the patient had not given consent. Hence, these explanations can only be hypothesized. In conclusion, here, we illustrate a strictly interesting patient manifesting with ipsilateral convulsive seizures by detailed clinical as well as DTI and routine EEG findings. Future studies of larger case series using combine para-clinic methods are needed to clarify these arguments. These reports may also provide substantial Manuscript submitted March 22, 2019, accepted April 26, 2019\",\"PeriodicalId\":16489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neurology Research\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neurology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/JNR.V9I3.526\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurology Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/JNR.V9I3.526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一位37岁男性患者,曾行右侧额顶叶弥漫性星形细胞瘤手术切除,因复杂的部分性癫痫发作,以右手局灶性惊厥为特征而入院。癫痫发作以左耳感觉性鸣响后右手抽搐的形式出现,通常持续几分钟,导致后脑混乱。他的癫痫发作是在4个月前诊断为星形细胞瘤的几个月前开始的。手术切除成功,术后放疗(肿瘤诊断后1个月)。然而,尽管每天服用300毫克的抗癫痫药物托吡酯,他还是每周发作近两次。在神经学检查中,他完全适应并配合。运动、感觉和小脑检查均在正常范围内。左侧深肌腱反射评估为中度轻快。常规脑电图(EEG)显示以锐波和慢波为特征的右侧中央-顶叶阵发性紊乱(图1)。成像(图2a, b)和电生理证据显示右半球潜在病灶;然而,与此相反,他经常遭受右手运动性癫痫的折磨。此时,为了评估皮质脊髓束可能的变化,进行了弥散张量成像(DTI),显示双侧皮质脊髓束在讨论时正常交叉(图2c)。在治疗方案中加入卡马西平600 mg,癫痫发作有显著改善,患者在随访的第三个月评估为无癫痫发作。同侧癫痫发作在文献中很少报道[1,2]。在这些报告中,病理生理学的解释,如锥体纤维交叉的可能的解剖变化,一个主要的大脑半球接管身体两侧的功能和锥体介导的抑制系统对未交叉的锥体纤维已被提出b[1]。在我们的病人中,脑电图显示病变半球有癫痫样放电。另一方面,DTI在讨论时显示双侧皮质脊髓束的正常交叉,这提示锥体纤维交叉变化以外的机制。在Kim等人有趣的报道中,经颅磁刺激(TMS)方法[3]证实了从未受影响的运动皮层到患手的同侧运动通路。他们注意到同侧运动通路在卒中康复方面是一个重要的机制。他们还讨论了同侧皮质脊髓束和非皮质脊髓束在经颅磁刺激研究中确定的同侧运动反应中的可能作用。然而,同侧运动活动在控制上肢运动中的作用仍然存在争议。虽然有证据支持同侧运动皮层的激活在单侧运动任务的运动输出中起作用,但运动皮层支配同侧脊髓运动神经元的机制及其通路的临床意义尚不清楚[4,5]。解释同侧运动皮层功能的前沿假设是:首先,通过经胼胝体中间神经元将主要活跃的运动皮层传递到对侧运动皮层;其次,一个动作的启动可能会激活两个半球的运动皮层,随后通过半球间通路,对侧运动皮层对同侧运动皮层的抑制[4,6]。另一方面,在文献中,左半球在同侧运动控制中比右半球发挥更大的作用,但在我们的报告中并非如此(右半球同侧大脑事件被提出)。值得注意的是,这些结论是基于对中风患者和正常人的研究得出的,在病理生理上与癫痫完全不同。因此,在某种程度上,根据这些研究得出结论可能是不合理的。然而,文献中仍然缺乏使用先进的临床外方法对癫痫患者进行研究的报道。一个重要的讨论可能是癫痫样放电向对侧半球的可能延伸可能导致同侧强直阵挛性癫痫发作。在这种情况下,一个有效的假设可以解释为什么我们的患者没有发生对侧癫痫发作,因为皮质脊髓通路受到干扰,阻止了以临床对侧惊厥发作形式的发作活动转化。尽管如此,由于患者未表示同意,电生理检查(运动撤销电位和视频脑电图监测)无法进行。因此,这些解释只能是假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Detailed Illustration of a Patient With Ipsilateral Seizures
A 37-year-old male patient with a history of surgical resection of diffuse astrocytoma right frontoparietal lobe was admitted to our policlinic due to complex partial seizures characterized by focal convulsions on the right hand. Seizures were in the form of convulsions of right hand following a sensation-like ringing in the left ear and were generally lasting for a few minutes resulting in postictal confusion. His seizures had started a few months prior to the diagnosis of astrocytoma 4 months ago. Successful resective surgery was performed and postoperative radiotherapy (1 month after the diagnosis of tumor) was administered. However, he had been having seizures nearly twice a week despite taking the anti-epileptic medication of topiramate 300 mg daily. On neurological examination, he was fully orientated and cooperated. Motor, sensory and cerebellar examinations were within normal limits. Deep tendon reflexes were evaluated as moderately brisk on the left side. Routine electroencephalogram (EEG) showed right centro-parietal paroxysmal disturbances characterized by sharp and slow waves (Fig. 1). Imaging (Fig. 2a, b) and electrophysiological evidence remarked an underlying right hemisphere focus; however, in contrary to this, he suffered from motor seizures of right hand constantly. At this point, to evaluate a possible variation in corticospinal tracts, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was performed which demonstrated bilateral corticospinal tracts with normal crossing at the decussation (Fig. 2c). Carbamazepine 600 mg daily was added to the treatment regimen which provided a significant improvement in seizures and the patient was evaluated as seizure-free on the third month of follow-up. Ipsilateral seizures have been reported very rarely in the literature [1, 2]. In these reports, pathophysiological explanations such as possible anatomical variations in the crossing of pyramidal fibers, one dominant cerebral hemisphere taking over the function of both sides of the body and colosally mediated inhibitory system over the uncrossed pyramidal fibers have been suggested [1]. In our patient, EEG showed epileptiform discharges in the lesional hemisphere. On the other hand, DTI showed normal crossing of bilateral corticospinal tract at the decussation which suggested mechanisms other than variations in the crossing of pyramidal fibers. In the interesting report by Kim et al, the ipsilateral motor pathway from the unaffected motor cortex to the affected hand was demonstrated by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) method [3]. They remarked the ipsilateral motor pathway as an important mechanism in terms of stroke rehabilitation. They also discussed the possible role of the ipsilateral corticospinal tract and non-corticospinal tract in this finding of ipsilateral motor responses determined in the TMS studies. However, the role of ipsilateral motor activity in the control of upper extremity movements remains controversial [4]. Although there are evidences supporting function of the activation of the ipsilateral motor cortex in motor output of unilateral motor tasks, mechanisms by which the motor cortex innervates the ipsilateral spinal motor neurons and clinical significance of this pathway remain unclear [4, 5]. Forefront hypotheses to explain ipsilateral motor cortex function were: first, via transcallosal interneurons that transmit from the primarily active motor cortex to the contralateral motor cortex; second, possible activation of both hemisphere motor cortex induced by initiation of an action, and subsequent inhibition of the ipsilateral motor cortex by opposite side motor cortex by means of interhemispheric pathways [4, 6]. On the other hand, in literature, left hemisphere has been shown to play a greater role in ipsilateral motor control than the right hemisphere, which was not the case in our report (right hemisphere ipsilateral cerebral event is presented) [7]. Of note, these conclusions are derived from studies conducted on stroke patients and normal individuals, which completely differ from epilepsy in terms of pathophysiology. Hence, at some point, it may not be rational to draw conclusions based on these studies. Nonetheless, reports of studies on epilepsy patients using advanced paraclinical methods still lack in the literature. A crucial discussion may be that possible extension of epileptiform discharges towards contralateral hemisphere might be leading to the ipsilateral tonic-clonic seizures. In this setting, a valid hypothesis of why contralateral seizures had not occurred in our patient may be explained through disturbed corticospinal pathways preventing transformation of ictal activity in the form of clinical contralateral convulsive seizures. Nonetheless, electrophysiological investigations (motorevoked potentials and video EEG monitorization) could not be performed because the patient had not given consent. Hence, these explanations can only be hypothesized. In conclusion, here, we illustrate a strictly interesting patient manifesting with ipsilateral convulsive seizures by detailed clinical as well as DTI and routine EEG findings. Future studies of larger case series using combine para-clinic methods are needed to clarify these arguments. These reports may also provide substantial Manuscript submitted March 22, 2019, accepted April 26, 2019
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信