Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.002
Zsuzsanna Szankai , Egle Huggenberger , Christoph Metzler , Christian Musahl , Markus Gschwind
Background
According to the recommendations of the International League against Epilepsy, a timely workup with a brain MRI is recommended after a first epileptic seizure. However, if the MRI is unrevealing, it is normally not repeated.
Case Presentation
We present a patient with an unprovoked epileptic seizure and only slight focal abnormalities in the EEG and a normal brain MRI. Only 35 days later, after a third seizure and now a focally pathological EEG, we repeated the brain MRI and discovered a large mass in the left temporal lobe, which was resected and histologically classified as glioblastoma multiforme.
Conclusion
This case of a very fast-growing tumor suggests that recurrent seizures, with or without anti-seizure medications, or new changes in the EEG should prompt the clinician to consider a repeat brain MRI, even if the first scan was normal.
{"title":"Within five weeks: Rapidly grown glioblastoma discovered on repeat MRI after pathologic EEG","authors":"Zsuzsanna Szankai , Egle Huggenberger , Christoph Metzler , Christian Musahl , Markus Gschwind","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>According to the recommendations of the International League against Epilepsy, a timely workup with a brain MRI is recommended after a first epileptic seizure. However, if the MRI is unrevealing, it is normally not repeated.</div></div><div><h3>Case Presentation</h3><div>We present a patient with an unprovoked epileptic seizure and only slight focal abnormalities in the EEG and a normal brain MRI. Only 35 days later, after a third seizure and now a focally pathological EEG, we repeated the brain MRI and discovered a large mass in the left temporal lobe, which was resected and histologically classified as glioblastoma multiforme.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This case of a very fast-growing tumor suggests that recurrent seizures, with or without anti-seizure medications, or new changes in the EEG should prompt the clinician to consider a repeat brain MRI, even if the first scan was normal.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"10 ","pages":"Pages 52-55"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143509100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.010
Scarpino Maenia , Verna Maria Teresa , Grippo Antonello , Lolli Francesco , Piccardi Benedetta , Nazerian Peiman , Nencini Patrizia , Boccardi Cristina , Nencioni Andrea
Objectives
To investigate the utility of the emergency electroencephalogram(emEEG) in the diagnostic work-up of patients admitted to the Emergency Department(ED).
Methods
Data from consecutive patients admitted to the ED during a 1-year period. We evaluated the usefulness of emEEGs based on the subsequent patient clinical management.
Results
1125 emEEGs from 1018 patients were analyzed. The overall usefulness of an emEEG was 86.7%, mainly influenced by its contribution to diagnosis(75.0%), often excluding initial working diagnosis(50.0%), and to patient management(78.0%). EmEEGs showed their best overall usefulness in Status Epilepticus(SE) and altered level of consciousness both in contributing to the final diagnosis and in patient management and therapeutic pathway. In speech and cognitive/behavioural disorders, emEEGs contributed to the diagnosis(80.6% and 79.8%, respectively), often excluding the initial suspicion of seizures/SE. Normal emEEGs contributed to diagnosis(79.0%), patient management(87.0%) and discharge to home(82.0%).
Conclusions
In ED, attending physicians have to make quick decisions about the diagnostic–therapeutic management of patients, and also the ruling out of the initial diagnosis and safely discharging the patient to home are also important goals.
Significance
This study provides valuable guidance to ED clinicians in selecting patients for an emEEG and evaluates its contribution to their diagnostic–therapeutic management.
{"title":"The role of EEG in the emergency department: Its contribution to the patient’s diagnostic–therapeutic pathway. The EMINENCE study","authors":"Scarpino Maenia , Verna Maria Teresa , Grippo Antonello , Lolli Francesco , Piccardi Benedetta , Nazerian Peiman , Nencini Patrizia , Boccardi Cristina , Nencioni Andrea","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.010","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.010","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To investigate the utility of the emergency electroencephalogram(emEEG) in the diagnostic work-up of patients admitted to the Emergency Department(ED).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data from consecutive patients admitted to the ED during a 1-year period. We evaluated the usefulness of emEEGs based on the subsequent patient clinical management.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>1125 emEEGs from 1018 patients were analyzed. The overall usefulness of an emEEG was 86.7%, mainly influenced by its contribution to diagnosis(75.0%), often excluding initial working diagnosis(50.0%), and to patient management(78.0%). EmEEGs showed their best overall usefulness in Status Epilepticus(SE) and altered level of consciousness both in contributing to the final diagnosis and in patient management and therapeutic pathway. In speech and cognitive/behavioural disorders, emEEGs contributed to the diagnosis(80.6% and 79.8%, respectively), often excluding the initial suspicion of seizures/SE. Normal emEEGs contributed to diagnosis(79.0%), patient management(87.0%) and discharge to home(82.0%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In ED, attending physicians have to make quick decisions about the diagnostic–therapeutic management of patients, and also the ruling out of the initial diagnosis and safely discharging the patient to home are also important goals.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>This study provides valuable guidance to ED clinicians in selecting patients for an emEEG and evaluates its contribution to their diagnostic–therapeutic management.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"10 ","pages":"Pages 70-77"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143580355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.001
Jee-Eun Kim , Jun-Soon Kim , Sejin Yang , Jongsuk Choi , Seung-Jae Hyun , Ki-Jeong Kim , Kyung Seok Park
{"title":"Corrigendum to “Neurophysiological monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament” [Clin. Neurophysiol. Pract. 6 (2021) 56–62]","authors":"Jee-Eun Kim , Jun-Soon Kim , Sejin Yang , Jongsuk Choi , Seung-Jae Hyun , Ki-Jeong Kim , Kyung Seok Park","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.02.001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"10 ","pages":"Page 78"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143580360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.cnp.2025.04.003
Laurien J. Reinders, Cecile C. de Vos
Objectives
The mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are insufficiently understood. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) measures how a painful stimulus is affected by a second painful stimulus. We investigated whether cortical evoked response can be used to evaluate CPM in a patient treated with burst, tonic and sham SCS.
Methods
A 40-year-old patient underwent 3 magnetoencephalography sessions (burst, tonic, sham SCS) with 1-week intervals. Painful electrical stimuli were applied to the tibial nerve before, during and after CPM (conditioning: icepack on forearm). Evoked responses were analysed in the primary somatosensory and anterior cingulate cortices.
Results
Before CPM, the highest evoked response amplitude occurred under sham SCS, followed by tonic SCS. During CPM pain ratings remained unchanged. However, CPM reduced evoked response amplitudes in the primary somatosensory cortex under tonic and sham SCS and in the anterior cingulate cortex under all SCS paradigms.
Conclusions
CPM reduced evoked response amplitudes, while pain ratings were unaffected, suggesting neurophysiological measures provide additional insights into CPM effects. Tonic and burst SCS both appeared to reduce cortical capacity to attend to stimuli, with burst showing the greatest effect.
Significance
Cortical responses offer a valuable tool to assess pain pathways. Larger scale studies are needed to enhance our understanding of SCS mechanisms.
{"title":"Cortical evoked responses to evaluate the effect of spinal cord stimulation on the pain pathways","authors":"Laurien J. Reinders, Cecile C. de Vos","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.04.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.cnp.2025.04.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are insufficiently understood. Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) measures how a painful stimulus is affected by a second painful stimulus. We investigated whether cortical evoked response can be used to evaluate CPM in a patient treated with burst, tonic and sham SCS.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A 40-year-old patient underwent 3 magnetoencephalography sessions (burst, tonic, sham SCS) with 1-week intervals. Painful electrical stimuli were applied to the tibial nerve before, during and after CPM (conditioning: icepack on forearm). Evoked responses were analysed in the primary somatosensory and anterior cingulate cortices.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Before CPM, the highest evoked response amplitude occurred under sham SCS, followed by tonic SCS. During CPM pain ratings remained unchanged. However, CPM reduced evoked response amplitudes in the primary somatosensory cortex under tonic and sham SCS and in the anterior cingulate cortex under all SCS paradigms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>CPM reduced evoked response amplitudes, while pain ratings were unaffected, suggesting neurophysiological measures provide additional insights into CPM effects. Tonic and burst SCS both appeared to reduce cortical capacity to attend to stimuli, with burst showing the greatest effect.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>Cortical responses offer a valuable tool to assess pain pathways. Larger scale studies are needed to enhance our understanding of SCS mechanisms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"10 ","pages":"Pages 167-171"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143935730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号