Seizure control does not predict hippocampal subfield volume change in children with focal drug-resistant epilepsy

Abstract

Background and purpose

Recurrent seizures have been reported to induce neuronal loss in the hippocampus. It is unclear whether seizure control influences hippocampal volume. The aims of this study were to determine if there was a change in total or subfield hippocampal volume over time in children with focal drug-resistant epilepsy, and whether seizure control influenced total or subfield hippocampal volumes.

Methods

Using FreeSurfer’s automated segmentation of brain magnetic resonance imaging scans, we calculated the total and subfield (including CA1, CA3, CA4, subiculum, presubiculum, parasubiculum, molecular layer and dentate gyrus) hippocampal volumes of children with non-lesional focal epilepsy. Seizure frequency and hippocampal volumes were assessed at baseline and follow-up. Patients were classified into those who were seizure free or have improvement in seizures (group 1) and those with no improvement in seizures (group 2) at follow-up.

Results

Thirty-seven patients were included, with mean age 10.31 ± 3.68 years at baseline. The interval between the two magnetic resonance imaging scans was 2.59 ± 1.25 years. There was no significant difference in the total and subfield hippocampal volumes for the whole cohort at follow-up compared to baseline (all P > 0.002). Seizure control of the two groups did not predict total or subfield hippocampal volume, after controlling for baseline volume, age, severity of seizure frequency at baseline and time interval between the magnetic resonance imaging scans (all P > 0.002).

Conclusion

We have found that total and subfield hippocampal volumes did not change, and seizure control did not predict hippocampal volumes at follow-up in children with drug-resistant epilepsy.

Keywords

Children with epilepsy drug-resistant epilepsy hippocampal subfields

Introduction

Drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) has been defined as the ‘failure of adequate trials of two tolerated, appropriately chosen and used antiseizure medications to achieve seizure freedom’.¹ Several studies have shown that children with mesial temporal lobe and extra-temporal lobe epilepsy could have hippocampal volume reduction compared to controls.^2–8 Decreased volume of the hippocampal head, body and tail and total hippocampal volume were identified even when the hippocampus appeared normal by visual inspection on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children with non-lesional focal epilepsy.³ Hippocampal volume has not been shown to be associated with age at seizure onset or duration of epilepsy in children with focal epilepsy.^4,9 However, in adults with temporal lobe epilepsy, volume reduction in the hippocampus has been shown to correlate with the duration of epilepsy.^10–12 Most studies that have assessed hippocampal volumes in children with epilepsy have evaluated total or regional hippocampal volume; that is, hippocampal head, body and tail, and have been cross-sectional in design.^{4–6,8,11,13,14} Hence, it is uncertain if hippocampal volumes decline over time with ongoing seizures.

The aims of this study were to determine if there was a change in total or subfield hippocampal volume over time in children with focal DRE, and whether seizure control influenced total or subfield hippocampal volume.

Methods

Subjects

This study was approved by the research ethics board at the Hospital for Sick Children. Informed consent was obtained from parents and assent from children. Children with non-lesional focal epilepsy and had two sequential MRIs on 3T with dedicated high-resolution epilepsy protocol at least one year apart were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included children less than 6 years of age at baseline as they were unable to undergo the MRI without general anaesthesia. The baseline MRI was done as part of a research study, and the follow-up MRI was done as part of clinical MRI. Demographic and clinical variables were collected through chart reviews. Focal epilepsy was based on ictal and interictal video-electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG) and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan.

MRI scanning

MRIs were performed on a Philips 3T scanner (Achieva, Philips Medical System, Best, The Netherlands) using an eight channel phased array head coil in all patients. The imaging in patients and controls included axial volumetric T1 (TR/TE 4.9/2.3 msec, slice thickness 1 mm, field of view (FOV) 22 cm, matrix 220 9 220), angled to the anterior commissure-posterior commissure plane. Additional sequences done on the same scanner included axial and coronal fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T2-weighted and proton density.

FreeSurfer automated hippocampal subfield segmentation

Automated segmentation of the whole hippocampus and hippocampal subfield volumes including cornu ammonis (CA)1, CA2/3, CA4, subiculum, presubiculum, parasubiculum, molecular layer and dentate gyrus volumes was carried out using FreeSurfer, v6.0 (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu). FreeSurfer uses probabilistic information estimated from a large training set of expert measurements to assign automatically a neuroanatomical label to each voxel in the brain.¹⁵ The technical details of the FreeSurfer whole brain segmentation procedure have been described in detail in previous publications.^16–19 In short, FreeSurfer was used to detect automatically the grey matter and white matter of all brain structures.^20,21 After that, the subroutine of the hippocampal subfield detection²² was implemented to generate subfield volumes including CA4, CA3 + CA2 (delineated in combination by the algorithm), CA1, hippocampal tail, subiculum, presubiculum, parasubiculum, molecular layer hippocampus (HP), granule cell and molecular layer of the dentate gyrus (GC-ML-DG), hippocampal amygdala transition area (HATA), fimbria and total hippocampus (Figure 1). FreeSurfer segmentations of the whole hippocampus and hippocampal subfields were visually inspected for accuracy.

Figure 1.

15-year-old boy with right hemispheric seizure, later classified as Engel III. Axial volumetric T1 weighted sequence (a), with sagittal (b) and coronal (c) reformats and (d) colour-coded overlay of hippocampal subfield volumes.

Seizure control

We assessed seizure frequency at baseline and follow-up MRI, and compared seizure control at follow-up relative to baseline. Seizure control was adapted from the Engel classification.^23,24 The patients were classified as free of disabling seizures (Engel 1), had rare disabling seizures (Engel II), worthwhile improvement in seizures (Engel III) and no worthwhile improvement of seizures (Engel IV) at follow-up compared to baseline. The patients were classified into two groups based on seizure control: group 1 consisted of those who were free of disabling seizures, had rare disabling seizures or worthwhile improvement in seizures, that is, Engel I–III; group 2 consisted of those without worthwhile improvement in seizures, that is, Engel IV. Seizure severity at baseline was assessed and binarised into (a) severe: more than once a month and (b) less severe: less than once a month.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with the statistical package for social sciences software (SPSS) version 18 (IBM SPSS, New York, USA). For baseline characteristics, continuous data were presented using mean and standard deviation (SD), and categorical data were presented using integers and percentages. Two-tailed t-tests were used to assess for group differences in age at baseline and follow-up MRI, as well as interval between the two MRI scans. We used a simple linear regression model to assess the total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up related to the seizure control group adjusting for baseline total or subfield volumes, age and time interval between the MRI scans. Bonferroni correction was conducted to account for multiple comparison, and a P value of less than 0.002 (=0.05/24 (number of comparisons)) was considered as statistically significant.²⁵

Results

Subjects

A total of 140 children with epilepsy and no epileptogenic lesion older than 5 years of age were screened for baseline and follow-up MRI brain. Of these, 103 children did not have follow-up brain MRI. Thus, 37 children (12 girls and 25 boys) were included in this study. The mean age was 10.31 ± 3.68 years (range 3.79–17.34 years) at first MRI. Sixteen patients had left-sided epilepsy and 21 had right-sided epilepsy. Nineteen patients had frontal lobe epilepsy (nine left-sided and 10 right-sided), seven had temporal lobe epilepsy (two left-sided and five right-sided), six had parietal lobe epilepsy (four left-sided and two right-sided) and five had multilobar epilepsy (one left-sided and four right-sided). The mean age at seizure onset for all patients was 6.25 ± 4.18 years and the mean duration of epilepsy at first MRI was 4.07 ± 3.47 years. The median number of antiepileptic drugs at baseline for all patients was two (range one to four).

The mean interval between the two MRI scans was 2.59 ± 1.25 years. Five patients were free of disabling seizures, five had rare disabling seizures, three had worthwhile improvement in seizures and 24 had no worthwhile improvement in seizures. Eleven children (29.7%) had a less severe seizure burden at baseline. Of these, two patients were in the group 1 category. Twenty-six patients (70.3%) had a severe seizure burden at baseline. Of these, 11 patients were in the group 1 category.

Mean age at first and second MRI and interval between the scans were not significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (all P > 0.002). Table 1 summarises patient characteristics according to their group.

Table 1.

Characteristics of 37 patients.

	Group 1 (n = 13, 35%)	Group 2 (n = 24, 65%)	P value
Engel class I	5	N/A
Engel class II	5	N/A
Engel class III	3	N/A
Engel class IV	N/A	24
Female:male (absolute and ratio)	3:10 (25%:40%)	9:15 (75%:60%)
Mean age ± SD at first MRI (years)	11.33 ± 4.65	9.77 ± 2.88	0.22
Mean age ± SD at second MRI (years)	14.17 ± 5.15	12.22 ± 2.88	0.15
Mean interval ± SD between the scans (years)	2.84 ± 1.38	2.45 ± 1.56	0.46
Right-sided:left-sided EEG findings	9:4 (43%:25%)	12:12 (57%:75%)
Mean duration of epilepsy ± SD at first MRI (years)	2.74 ± 2.62	4.79 ± 3.65	0.08
Median number and range of antiepileptic medications	2 [1-4]	2 [1-3]
Seizure severity at baseline MRI, severe:less severe	11:2 (42%:18%)	15:9 (58%:82%)

EEG: electroencephalography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; SD: standard deviation.

Total and subfield hippocampal volumes: whole cohort

The baseline and follow-up total and subfield hippocampal volumes for the whole cohort are shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference in left versus right hippocampal and hippocampal subfield volumes for the whole cohort (all P > 0.002). No significant differences were found in the total hippocampal and hippocampal subfield volumes for the whole cohort at follow-up compared to baseline (all P > 0.002).

Table 2.

Whole cohort comparison of volumes in mean mm³ ± SD at baseline and at follow-up MRI.

	1st MRI	2nd MRI
Right
Hippocampal tail	476.50 ± 64.69	474.96 ± 63.96
Subiculum	418.28 ± 46.59	421.68 ± 49.17
CA1	634.16 ± 82.03	632.03 ± 87.31
Presubiculum	300.80 ± 40.98	300.38 ± 44.01
Parasubiculum	65.98 ± 11.91	66.38 ± 15.88
Molecular layer HP	559.15 ± 62.72	558.39 ± 63.15
GC-ML-DG	294.22 ± 32.17	292.58 ± 28.21
CA3	208.00 ± 30.92	206.04 ± 30.67
CA4	253.06 ± 26.50	249.93 ± 23.76
Fimbria	88.79 ± 19.64	92.68 ± 21.73
HATA	58.42 ± 8.59	59.72 ± 8.70
Whole hippocampus	3357.36 ± 341.72	3354.76 ± 351.79
Left
Hippocampal tail	482.63 ± 70.73	479.14 ± 68.38
Subiculum	424.40 ± 47.58	427.21 ± 49.98
CA1	613.58 ± 88.52	616.00 ± 85.64
Presubiculum	314.20 ± 34.39	316.15 ± 36.91
Parasubiculum	68.78 ± 11.54	69.47 ± 13.73
Molecular layer HP	548.18 ± 66.68	551.88 ± 65.67
GC-ML-DG	280.51 ± 33.96	282.56 ± 33.00
CA3	190.15 ± 35.92	189.38 ± 35.08
CA4	239.16 ± 27.96	241.06 ± 28.51
Fimbria	92.76 ± 20.44	94.37 ± 18.17
HATA	55.91 ± 8.82	56.79 ± 8.49
Whole hippocampus	3310.25 ± 370.63	3324.02 ± 357.92
Whole brain volume of 1st and 2nd MRI	1,184,294.38 ±102,951.96	1,174,004.70 ±102,542.59

FreeSurfer results are shown for hippocampus and hippocampal subfield segmentations in mm³ (mean ± SD).

CA: cornu ammonis; HP: hippocampus; GC-ML-DG: granule cell and molecular layer of the dentate gyrus; HATA: hippocampal amygdala transition area; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; SD: standard deviation.

Individually, 23 patients have an increase of more than 10% in subfield hippocampal volumes, and seven patients have an increase of more than 10% in total hippocampal volumes. Twenty-five patients have a decrease of more than 10% in subfield hippocampal volumes, and two patients have a decrease of more than 10% in total hippocampal volumes. One patient had right frontal epilepsy and showed a 12.1% decrease in the size of the right hippocampus, including a 51.43% decrease of the parasubiculum, 24.76% decrease of the presubiculum and a 16.16% decrease of the fimbria. The other patient had left parietal epilepsy and showed a 11.51% decrease in the size of the left hippocampus, including a 25.2% decrease of the hippocampal tail, a 19.27% decrease of the CA3 and a 15.65% decrease of the CA1.

Seizure control versus total and subfield hippocampal volumes

The right and left total and subfield hippocampal volumes of group 1 and group 2 at baseline and follow-up are shown in Figure 2. There were no significant associations between total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up and seizure control group, after adjusting for baseline volume, age, seizure severity at baseline and time interval between the MRI scans (all P > 0.002). Regression coefficients and P values are summarised in Supplementary Table 1. From group 1, nine patients demonstrated a hippocampal subfield volume decrease greater than 10% including the fimbria (five patients), hippocampal tail (two patients), parasubiculum (two patients), HATA (one patient), CA1 (one patient), presubiculum (one patient) and CA3 (one patient). From group 2, 15 patients demonstrated a hippocampus or a hippocampal subfield volume decrease greater than 10% including parasubiculum (eight patients), fimbria (five patients), CA3 (four patients), HATA (three patients), presubiculum (three patients), hippocampal tail (three patients), subiculum (three patients), CA1 (two patients), CA4 (two patients), whole hippocampus (two patients), GC-ML-DG (one patient) and molecular layer HP (one patient) (see Supplementary Table 2).

Figure 2.

(a) Right and (b) left total and subfield hippocampal volumes group 1 (Engel I–III seizure outcome), and (c) right and (d) left total and subfield hippocampal volumes in group 2 (Engel IV seizure outcome).

Discussion

We did not find a difference in total or subfield hippocampal volume at follow-up compared to baseline for the whole cohort. Further, we found that there were no associations between total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up and with seizure control (group 1 vs. group 2), after adjusting for baseline volumes, age and time interval between the MRI scans.

Polli et al.²⁶ evaluated the hippocampal volumes in rats treated with kainic acid or pilocarpine to induce status epilepticus, and their hippocampal volumes were measured on MRI at 3, 6 and 9 months. Both groups had a time-specific reduction in MRI hippocampal volume compared to controls, but the hippocampal volume reduction did not progress over time. The authors concluded that hippocampal atrophy once detected remains stable, despite continuous seizures.²⁶ Similar findings were reported in an adult study with 179 patients.²⁷ Thirty-three of the 179 patients were diagnosed with cryptogenic temporal lobe epilepsy. No significant correlation was observed between the frequency of convulsive seizures, partial seizures, epilepsy duration, antiepileptic drug use and change in ipsilateral hippocampal volume.²⁷ Our findings were in line with the literature, in that we did not find a significant volume loss of total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up compared to baseline, nor volume loss based on seizure control over time in children with focal DRE.

Previous studies have evaluated hippocampal total or subregion volumes such as hippocampal head, body and tail volume, and demonstrated reduced hippocampal volumes in children with focal epilepsy.^3–8,28,29 Reduced total and regional hippocampal volumes were identified in those with non-lesional epilepsy and have normal appearing hippocampus, both ipsilateral and contralateral to seizure focus.³ Those studies were cross-sectional in design. To our knowledge, there has been no longitudinal study that has evaluated total or subfield hippocampal volumes in children with focal epilepsy. It is possible that hippocampal volume reduction may be time specific, occurring around the time of seizure onset, but does not progress with time, similar to that observed in an animal model.²⁶ Alternatively, there may be microstructural changes in the hippocampal subfields that may not be detected using volumetric measures. A prior study has also shown that there was no significant volume loss longitudinally in total, cerebral or hemispheric grey or white matter in children with focal epilepsy,³⁰ suggesting that volume loss does not occur despite ongoing seizures.

A prior systematic review and meta-analysis has shown that neuronal loss was observed in hippocampal subfields CA1 to CA4 in patients with hippocampal sclerosis.³¹ In vivo MRI of hippocampal body subfield identified abnormality in subfield volume in patients with hippocampal sclerosis, which corresponded with International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) hippocampal sclerosis subtypes based on histology.³² Voets et al.³³ evaluated patients with MRI-negative temporal lobe epilepsy and found hippocampal subfield atrophy in nine out of 12 (75%) patients, commonly affecting CA3. Studies that have assessed hippocampal subfields have done so in adults with temporal lobe epilepsy, and were cross-sectional studies comparing hippocampal subfield volumes on MRI to histological assessment. Our study has evaluated hippocampal subfield volumes longitudinally in children. Although we did not find a difference in total or subfield volumes at follow-up relative to baseline for the whole cohort, 25 patients demonstrated a reduction in total and/or subfield volume by more than 10%. It is possible that there are individuals who may be more susceptible to injury related to ongoing seizures than others, and average group differences may not be sufficiently sensitive to identify subtle changes in hippocampal volumes.

Our study has limitations. We used FreeSurfer’s automated segmentation of the hippocampal subfields. Manual segmentation of the hippocampus was reported to be more sensitive in detecting hippocampal atrophy than automated segmentation,^13,17,34 but it is time consuming and prone to operator error. Automated segmentation of the hippocampal subfields using FreeSurfer has the potential to provide rapid and accurate assessment of the hippocampal volume, and has been shown to be sensitive at detecting hippocampal atrophy.^13,17,35,36 Whelan et al. showed that FreeSurfer version 6 is a reliable tool for segmenting hippocampal subfields, with intraclass correlation of 0.90 or greater.³⁷ Herten et al. recommended utilising both T1 and T2-weighted images for FreeSurfer’s automated segmentation of the hippocampus to increase accuracy.³⁸ However, volumetric T2-weighted images were not available for this study. We have included children with a variety of epilepsy types. It is uncertain whether those with temporal lobe epilepsy would be more likely to demonstrate hippocampal volume loss over time relative to extra-temporal epilepsy. Bernasconi et al. showed that in adults with temporal lobe epilepsy, hippocampal, amygdala and entorhinal atrophy was associated with the duration of epilepsy.³⁹ In addition, it is possible that with an increase in the time interval between baseline and follow-up, total and subfield hippocampal volumes could demonstrate significant volumetric changes. Other limitations are the moderate number of patients at various ages, the single-centre nature of this study and the relative lack of controls with longitudinal MRI. Recruiting and retaining healthy children as controls in longitudinal research is challenging. In a previous cross-sectional study, we have compared the hippocampal volumes in children with non-lesional focal epilepsy to healthy controls and found smaller hippocampal subregion volumes in patients relative to controls.³

In conclusion, our study did not show a difference in total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up compared to baseline, although 25 patients showed a 10% reduction in total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up compared to baseline. We also found that seizure control did not predict total or subfield hippocampal volumes at follow-up. Future study is required to validate our findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-neu-10.1177_19714009211049078 - Supplemental material for Seizure control does not predict hippocampal subfield volume change in children with focal drug-resistant epilepsy

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-neu-10.1177_19714009211049078 for Seizure control does not predict hippocampal subfield volume change in children with focal drug-resistant epilepsy by Matthias W. Wagner, Jovanka Skocic and Elysa Widjaja in The Neuroradiology Journal

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

This study has the approval of institutional research ethics board.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Sickkids Foundation/CIHR Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health, and EpLink – the Epilepsy Research Program of the Ontario Brain Institute. The Ontario Brain Institute is an independent non-profit corporation, funded partially by the Ontario government. The opinions, results and conclusions are those of the authors and no endorsement by the Ontario Brain Institute is intended or should be inferred.

ORCID iD

Matthias W. Wagner

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Kwan

Arzimanoglou

Berg

, et al. Definition of drug resistant epilepsy: consensus proposal by the ad hoc Task Force of the ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia 2010; 51: 1069–1077.

Berg

Pardoe

Fulbright

, et al. Hippocampal size anomalies in a community-based cohort with childhood-onset epilepsy. Neurology 2011; 76: 1415–1431.

Widjaja

Zamyadi

Raybaud

, et al. Volumetric changes in hippocampal subregions and their relation to memory in pediatric nonlesional localization-related epilepsy. Epilepsia 2014; 55: 519–527.

Eroglu

Kurul

Cakmakçi

, et al. The correlation of seizure characteristics and hippocampal volumetric magnetic resonance imaging findings in children with idiopathic partial epilepsy. J Child Neurol 2007; 22: 348–353.

Huang

Chung

, et al. Hippocampal alterations in children with temporal lobe epilepsy with or without a history of febrile convulsions: evaluations with MR volumetry and proton MR spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26: 1270–1275.

Major

Decarie

Nadeau

, et al. Clinical significance of isolated hippocampal volume asymmetry in childhood epilepsy. Neurology 2004; 63: 1503–1506.

Cormack

Gadian

Vargha-Khadem

, et al. Extra-hippocampal grey matter density abnormalities in paediatric mesial temporal sclerosis. NeuroImage 2005; 27: 635–643.

Varho

Komu

Sonninen

, et al. Quantitative HMRS and MRI volumetry indicate neuronal damage in the hippocampus of children with focal epilepsy and infrequent seizures. Epilepsia 2005; 46: 696–703.

Daley

Ott

Blanton

, et al. Hippocampal volume in childhood complex partial seizures. Epilepsy Res 2006; 72: 57–66.

10.

Mishra

Bai

Gribizis

, et al. Neuroimaging biomarkers of epileptogenesis. Neurosci Lett 2011; 497: 194–204.

11.

Bernhardt

Worsley

Kim

, et al. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of atrophy in pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology 2009; 72: 1747–1754.

12.

Johnson

Rizk

Kaur

, et al. Refractory seizures: prediction of outcome of surgical intervention based on results from PET-CT, PET-MRI and electroencephaolography. Neuroradiol J 2020; 33: 57–65.

13.

Pardoe

Pell

Abbott

, et al. Hippocampal volume assessment in temporal lobe epilepsy: how good is automated segmentation? Epilepsia 2009; 50: 2586–2592.

14.

Salmah

JWM

Noorfizura

Shafie

, et al. Hippocampal MR volumetric studies in paediatric patients with epilepsy and normal controls. Neuroradiol J 2011; 24: 503–510.

15.

Saito

Kamagata

Ueda

, et al. Ventricular volumetry and free-water corrected diffusion tensor imaging of the anterior thalamic radiation in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neuroradiol 2020; 47: 312–317.

16.

Peixoto-Santos

de Carvalho

LED

Kandratavicius

, et al. Manual hippocampal subfield segmentation using high-field MRI: impact of different subfields in hippocampal volume loss of temporal lobe epilepsy patients. Front Neurol 2018; 9: 927.

17.

Sanchez-Benavides

Gomez-Anson

Sainz

, et al. Manual validation of FreeSurfer’s automated hippocampal segmentation in normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer disease subjects. Psychiatry Res 2010; 181: 219–225.

18.

Fischl

FreeSurfer. Neuroimage 2012; 62: 774–781.

19.

Granados Sánchez

Orejuela Zapata

JF.

Diagnosis of mesial temporal sclerosis: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroradiol J 2018; 31: 50–59.

20.

Fischl

Salat

Busa

, et al. Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 2002; 33: 341–355.

21.

Dale

Fischl

Sereno

MI.

Cortical surface-based analysis: I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 1999; 9: 179–194.

22.

Iglesias

Augustinack

Nguyen

, et al. A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI. Neuroimage 2015; 115: 117–137.

23.

Engel J Jr, Van Ness PC, Rasmussen TB and Ojemann LM. Outcome with respect to epileptic seizures. In Engel J Jr, (ed). Surgical treatment of the epilepsies. New York: Raven Press, 1993: 609–21.

24.

Engel

Update on surgical treatment of the epilepsies: summary of the second international palm desert conference on the surgical treatment of the epilepsies (1992). Neurology 1993; 43: 1612.

25.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ (Clin Res ed.) 1995; 310: 170.

26.

Polli

Malheiros

Dos Santos

, et al. Changes in hippocampal volume are correlated with cell loss but not with seizure frequency in two chronic models of temporal lobe epilepsy. Front Neurol 2014; 5: 111.

27.

Liu

Lemieux

Bell

, et al. Cerebral damage in epilepsy: a population-based longitudinal quantitative MRI study. Epilepsia 2005; 46: 1482–1494.

28.

Guimaraes

Bonilha

Franzon

, et al. Distribution of regional gray matter abnormalities in a pediatric population with temporal lobe epilepsy and correlation with neuropsychological performance. Epilepsy Behav: E&B 2007; 11: 558–566.

29.

Lawson

Vogrin

Bleasel

, et al. Predictors of hippocampal, cerebral, and cerebellar volume reduction in childhood epilepsy. Epilepsia 2000; 41: 1540–1545.

30.

Widjaja

Yeung

Geibprasert

, et al. Longitudinal brain volumes in children with intractable partial seizures. Pediatr Neurol 2010; 42: 315–319.

31.

Steve

Jirsch

Gross

DW.

Quantification of subfield pathology in hippocampal sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epilepsy Res 2014; 108: 1279–1285.

32.

Steve

Gargula

Misaghi

, et al. Hippocampal subfield measurement and ILAE hippocampal sclerosis subtype classification with in vivo 4.7 tesla MRI. Epilepsy Res 2020; 161: 106279.

33.

Voets

Hodgetts

Sen

, et al. Hippocampal MRS and subfield volumetry at 7T detects dysfunction not specific to seizure focus. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 1–14.

34.

Doring

Kubo

Cruz

LCH

Jr , et al. Evaluation of hippocampal volume based on MR imaging in patients with bipolar affective disorder applying manual and automatic segmentation techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 565–572.

35.

Bonilha

Halford

Rorden

, et al. Automated MRI analysis for identification of hippocampal atrophy in temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia 2009; 50: 228–233.

36.

Akhondi-Asl

Jafari-Khouzani

Elisevich

, et al. Hippocampal volumetry for lateralization of temporal lobe epilepsy: automated versus manual methods. NeuroImage 2011; 54: S218–S226.

37.

Whelan

Hibar

van Velzen

, et al. Heritability and reliability of automatically segmented human hippocampal formation subregions. NeuroImage 2016; 128: 125–137.

38.

Herten

Konrad

Krinzinger

, et al. Accuracy and bias of automatic hippocampal segmentation in children and adolescents. Brain Struct Function 2019; 224: 795–810.

39.

Bernasconi

Natsume

Bernasconi

Progression in temporal lobe epilepsy. Different Atrophy Mesial Temp Struct 2005; 65: 223–228.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB