You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Epilepsy surgery at its best: randomised prospective controlled trials in neurosurgery are no magic

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Editorial commentary
Epilepsy surgery at its best: randomised prospective controlled trials in neurosurgery are no magic
  1. Peter C Warnke
  1. Neurosurgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Peter C Warnke, Neurosurgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA; pwarnke{at}surgery.bsd.uchicago.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2017-317683

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    A new way to look at epilepsy surgery outcomes

    Three fields of neurosurgery have truly lived up to the aspirations of evidence-based medicine with multiple randomised controlled trials published in top impact journals: epilepsy surgery and movement disorder surgery and to a lesser degree stereotactic radiosurgery.1–3

    The JNNP paper of Vogt et al 4adds another layer of granularity to the epilepsy surgery literature and shows quite clearly that randomised prospective trials in neurosurgery—so badly needed in many areas—are feasible and very useful.

    Comparing two different approaches and hence techniques of performing selective amygdala-hippocampectomies (SAH) in a randomised prospective fashion is not an esoteric enterprise. First, the field naturally is moving towards more tailored minimally invasive surgical procedures in epilepsy surgery, relegating gross volumetric techniques like anterior temporal lobectomy hopefully to …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles