Endoscope-assisted (with robotic guidance and using a hybrid technique) interhemispheric transcallosal hemispherotomy: a comparative study with open hemispherotomy to evaluate efficacy, complications, and outcome.

OBJECTIVE Endoscope-assisted hemispherotomy (EH) has emerged as a good alternative option for hemispheric pathologies with drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS This was a prospective observational study. Parameters measured included primary outcome measures (frequency, severity of seizures) and secondary outcomes (cognition, behavior, and quality of life). Blood loss, operating time, complications, and hospital stay were also taken into account. A comparison was made between the open hemispherotomy (OH) and endoscopic techniques performed by the senior author. RESULTS Of 59 cases (42 males), 27 underwent OH (8 periinsular, the rest vertical) and 32 received EH. The mean age was 8.65 +/- 5.41 years (EH: 8.6 +/- 5.3 years; OH: 8.6 +/- 5.7 years). Seizure frequency per day was 7 +/- 5.9 (EH: 7.3 +/- 4.6; OH: 15.0 +/- 6.2). Duration of disease (years since first episode) was 3.92 +/- 1.24 years (EH: 5.2 +/- 4.3; OH: 5.8 +/- 4.5 years). Number of antiepileptic drugs per patient was 3.9 +/- 1.2 (EH: 4.2 +/- 1.2; OH: 3.8 +/- 0.98). Values for the foregoing variables are expressed as the mean +/- SD. Pathologies included the following: postinfarct encephalomalacia in 19 (EH: 11); Rasmussen's syndrome in 14 (EH: 7); hemimegalencephaly in 12 (EH: 7); hemispheric cortical dysplasia in 7 (EH: 4); postencephalitis sequelae in 6 (EH: 2); and Sturge-Weber syndrome in 1 (EH: 1). The mean follow-up was 40.16 +/- 17.3 months. Thirty-nine of 49 (79.6%) had favorable outcomes (International League Against Epilepsy class I and II): in EH the total was 19/23 (82.6%) and in OH it was 20/26 (76.9%). There was no difference in the primary outcome between EH and OH (p = 0.15). Significant improvement was seen in the behavioral/quality of life performance, but not in IQ scores in both EH and OH (p < 0.01, no intergroup difference). Blood loss (p = 0.02) and hospital stay (p = 0.049) were less in EH. CONCLUSIONS EH was as effective as the open procedure in terms of primary and secondary outcomes. It also resulted in less blood loss and a shorter postoperative hospital stay.