聚焦超声治疗癫痫:临床前和临床研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurosurgical Review Pub Date : 2024-11-10 DOI:10.1007/s10143-024-03078-5
Alireza Soltani Khaboushan, Rasa Zafari, Mohammadmahdi Sabahi, MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh, Mohammad Amin Dabbagh Ohadi, Oliver Flouty, Manish Ranjan, Konstantin V Slavin
{"title":"聚焦超声治疗癫痫:临床前和临床研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Alireza Soltani Khaboushan, Rasa Zafari, Mohammadmahdi Sabahi, MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh, Mohammad Amin Dabbagh Ohadi, Oliver Flouty, Manish Ranjan, Konstantin V Slavin","doi":"10.1007/s10143-024-03078-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Various preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the neuromodulatory and ablative effects of focused ultrasound (FUS). However, the safety and efficacy of FUS in clinical settings for treating epilepsy have not been well established. This study aims to provide a systematic review of all preclinical and clinical studies that have used FUS for the treatment of epilepsy. A systematic search was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases. All preclinical and clinical studies reporting outcomes of FUS in the treatment of epilepsy were included in the systematic review. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine safety in clinical studies and seizure activity reduction in preclinical studies. A total of 24 articles were included in the study. Meta-analysis demonstrated that adverse events occurred in 13% (95% CI = 2-57%) of patients with epilepsy who underwent FUS. The frequency of adverse events was higher with the use of FUS for lesioning (36%, 95% CI = 4-88%) in comparison to neuromodulation (5%, 95% CI = 0-71%), although this difference was not significant (P = 0.31). Three-level meta-analysis in preclinical studies demonstrated a reduced spike rate in neuromodulating FUS compared to the control group (P = 0.02). According to this systematic review and meta-analysis, FUS can be considered a safe and feasible approach for treating epileptic seizures, especially in drug-resistant patients. While the efficacy of FUS has been demonstrated in several preclinical studies, further research is necessary to confirm its effectiveness in clinical practice and to determine the adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Focused ultrasound for treatment of epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.\",\"authors\":\"Alireza Soltani Khaboushan, Rasa Zafari, Mohammadmahdi Sabahi, MirHojjat Khorasanizadeh, Mohammad Amin Dabbagh Ohadi, Oliver Flouty, Manish Ranjan, Konstantin V Slavin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10143-024-03078-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Various preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the neuromodulatory and ablative effects of focused ultrasound (FUS). However, the safety and efficacy of FUS in clinical settings for treating epilepsy have not been well established. This study aims to provide a systematic review of all preclinical and clinical studies that have used FUS for the treatment of epilepsy. A systematic search was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases. All preclinical and clinical studies reporting outcomes of FUS in the treatment of epilepsy were included in the systematic review. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine safety in clinical studies and seizure activity reduction in preclinical studies. A total of 24 articles were included in the study. Meta-analysis demonstrated that adverse events occurred in 13% (95% CI = 2-57%) of patients with epilepsy who underwent FUS. The frequency of adverse events was higher with the use of FUS for lesioning (36%, 95% CI = 4-88%) in comparison to neuromodulation (5%, 95% CI = 0-71%), although this difference was not significant (P = 0.31). Three-level meta-analysis in preclinical studies demonstrated a reduced spike rate in neuromodulating FUS compared to the control group (P = 0.02). According to this systematic review and meta-analysis, FUS can be considered a safe and feasible approach for treating epileptic seizures, especially in drug-resistant patients. While the efficacy of FUS has been demonstrated in several preclinical studies, further research is necessary to confirm its effectiveness in clinical practice and to determine the adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-024-03078-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-024-03078-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

各种临床前和临床研究已经证明了聚焦超声(FUS)的神经调节和消融作用。然而,FUS 在临床环境中治疗癫痫的安全性和有效性尚未得到很好的证实。本研究旨在对使用 FUS 治疗癫痫的所有临床前和临床研究进行系统回顾。我们使用 Scopus、Web of Science、PubMed 和 Embase 数据库进行了系统性检索。所有报告 FUS 治疗癫痫结果的临床前和临床研究均被纳入系统综述。随机效应荟萃分析用于确定临床研究的安全性和临床前研究中癫痫发作活动减少的情况。研究共纳入了 24 篇文章。荟萃分析表明,在接受FUS治疗的癫痫患者中,13%(95% CI = 2-57%)的患者发生了不良事件。与神经调控(5%,95% CI = 0-71%)相比,使用 FUS 进行病变治疗的不良事件发生率更高(36%,95% CI = 4-88%),但这一差异并不显著(P = 0.31)。临床前研究的三级荟萃分析表明,与对照组相比,神经调控 FUS 的尖峰率降低(P = 0.02)。根据这项系统综述和荟萃分析,可以认为 FUS 是治疗癫痫发作的一种安全可行的方法,尤其适用于耐药患者。虽然 FUS 的疗效已在多项临床前研究中得到证实,但仍有必要开展进一步研究,以确认其在临床实践中的有效性,并确定其不良反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Focused ultrasound for treatment of epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.

Various preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the neuromodulatory and ablative effects of focused ultrasound (FUS). However, the safety and efficacy of FUS in clinical settings for treating epilepsy have not been well established. This study aims to provide a systematic review of all preclinical and clinical studies that have used FUS for the treatment of epilepsy. A systematic search was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases. All preclinical and clinical studies reporting outcomes of FUS in the treatment of epilepsy were included in the systematic review. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine safety in clinical studies and seizure activity reduction in preclinical studies. A total of 24 articles were included in the study. Meta-analysis demonstrated that adverse events occurred in 13% (95% CI = 2-57%) of patients with epilepsy who underwent FUS. The frequency of adverse events was higher with the use of FUS for lesioning (36%, 95% CI = 4-88%) in comparison to neuromodulation (5%, 95% CI = 0-71%), although this difference was not significant (P = 0.31). Three-level meta-analysis in preclinical studies demonstrated a reduced spike rate in neuromodulating FUS compared to the control group (P = 0.02). According to this systematic review and meta-analysis, FUS can be considered a safe and feasible approach for treating epileptic seizures, especially in drug-resistant patients. While the efficacy of FUS has been demonstrated in several preclinical studies, further research is necessary to confirm its effectiveness in clinical practice and to determine the adverse events.

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
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Aneurysmal formation of periventricular anastomosis is associated with collateral development of Moyamoya disease and its rupture portends poor prognosis: detailed analysis by multivariate statistical and machine learning approaches. Comparative efficacy and safety of N-butyl cyanoacrylate vs. Onyx in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Comparative efficacy of awake and asleep motor mapping in glioma surgery: A meta-analysis of 3011 patients. Efficacy and safety of deep brain stimulation in drug resistance epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. P4HA2 knockdown prevents the progression of intracranial aneurysm by inducing prolyl hydroxylation of YAP1.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1