Laser interstitial thermal therapy in pediatric cerebellar epilepsy.

Cerebellar lesional epilepsy is rare, commonly manifesting in early life and posing diagnostic and treatment challenges. Seizure semiology may be subtle, with repetitive eye blinking, face twitching, and irregular breathing, while EEG commonly remains unremarkable. Pharmacoresistance is the rule, and surgical intervention is the only treatment with the potential for cure. Novel minimally invasive techniques, such as laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT), are emerging for surgically less accessible, deep-seated epileptogenic lesions. We report the case of a patient who presented with peculiar eye and face movements occurring episodically and stereotypically since the first weeks of life and was later diagnosed with cerebellar epilepsy related to a hamartoma. Refractory daily seizures, unresponsive to antiseizure medication, were followed by increasingly prominent gait ataxia and delayed speech development. Staged LITT was performed in two consecutive sessions at 3 and 4 years, leading to seizure cessation, neurological improvement, and developmental gains over a postsurgical follow-up period of 8 months. Our case highlights cerebellar lesional epilepsy as a rare but important differential diagnosis in children with paroxysmal disorders predominantly involving the face. Furthermore, we illustrate the radiological correlates of neurocognitive deficit related to the cerebellar lesion, manifesting as cerebello-cerebral diaschisis. Most importantly, our observations showcase LITT as a safe and effective therapeutic approach in cerebellar lesional epilepsy and an attractive alternative to open brain surgery, especially for deep-seated lesions in the pediatric population.

Levetiracetam versus Phenobarbital for Neonatal Seizures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although phenobarbital (PB) is commonly used as a first-line antiseizure medication (ASM) for neonatal seizures, in 2015 we chose to replace it with levetiracetam (LEV), a third-generation ASM. Here, we compared the safety and efficacy of LEV and PB as first-line ASM, considering the years before and after modifying our treatment protocol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 108 neonates with electroencephalography (EEG)-confirmed seizures treated with first-line LEV or PB in 2012 to 2020. RESULTS: First-line ASM was LEV in 33 (31%) and PB in 75 (69%) neonates. The etiology included acute symptomatic seizures in 69% of cases (30% hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, 32% structural vascular, 6% infectious, otherwise metabolic) and neonatal epilepsy in 22% (5% structural due to brain malformation, 17% genetic). Forty-two of 108 (39%) neonates reached seizure freedom following first-line therapy. Treatment response did not vary by first-line ASM among all neonates, those with acute symptomatic seizures, or those with neonatal-onset epilepsy. Treatment response was lowest for neonates with a higher seizure frequency, particularly for those with status epilepticus versus rare seizures (P < 0.001), irrespective of gestational age, etiology, or EEG findings. Adverse events were noted in 22 neonates treated with PB and in only one treated with LEV (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a potential noninferiority and a more acceptable safety profile for LEV, which may thus be a reasonable option as first-line ASM for neonatal seizures in place of PB. Treatment should be initiated as early as possible since higher seizure frequencies predispose to less favorable responses.