| 1. |
- Dorfer, C., et al.
(author)
-
How technology is driving the landscape of epilepsy surgery
- 2020
-
In: Epilepsia. - : Wiley. - 0013-9580 .- 1528-1167. ; 61:5, s. 841-855
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article emphasizes the role of the technological progress in changing the landscape of epilepsy surgery and provides a critical appraisal of robotic applications, laser interstitial thermal therapy, intraoperative imaging, wireless recording, new neuromodulation techniques, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. Specifically, (a) it relativizes the current hype in using robots for stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) to increase the accuracy of depth electrode placement and save operating time; (b) discusses the drawback of laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) when it comes to the need for adequate histopathologic specimen and the fact that the concept of stereotactic disconnection is not new; (c) addresses the ratio between the benefits and expenditure of using intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), that is, the high technical and personnel expertise needed that might restrict its use to centers with a high case load, including those unrelated to epilepsy; (d) soberly reviews the advantages, disadvantages, and future potentials of neuromodulation techniques with special emphasis on the differences between closed and open-loop systems; and (e) provides a critical outlook on the clinical implications of focused ultrasound, wireless recording, and multipurpose electrodes that are already on the horizon. This outlook shows that although current ultrasonic systems do have some limitations in delivering the acoustic energy, further advance of this technique may lead to novel treatment paradigms. Furthermore, it highlights that new data streams from multipurpose electrodes and wireless transmission of intracranial recordings will become available soon once some critical developments will be achieved such as electrode fidelity, data processing and storage, heat conduction as well as rechargeable technology. A better understanding of modern epilepsy surgery will help to demystify epilepsy surgery for the patients and the treating physicians and thereby reduce the surgical treatment gap.
|
|
| 2. |
- Engebretson, Mark J., et al.
(author)
-
Interhemispheric Comparisons of Large Nighttime Magnetic Perturbation Events Relevant to GICs
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics. - : American Geophysical Union (AGU). - 2169-9380 .- 2169-9402. ; 125:8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Nearly all studies of impulsive magnetic perturbation events (MPEs) with large magnetic field variability (dB/dt) that can produce dangerous geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) have used data from the Northern Hemisphere. Here we present details of four large‐amplitude MPE events (|ΔBx| > 900 nT and |dB/dt| > 10 nT/s in at least one component) observed between 2015 and 2018 in conjugate high‐latitude regions (65–80° corrected geomagnetic latitude), using magnetometer data from (1) Pangnirtung and Iqaluit in eastern Arctic Canada and the magnetically conjugate South Pole Station in Antarctica and (2) the Greenland West Coast Chain and two magnetically conjugate chains in Antarctica, AAL‐PIP and BAS LPM. From one to three different isolated MPEs localized in corrected geomagnetic latitude were observed during three premidnight events; many were simultaneous within 3 min in both hemispheres. Their conjugate latitudinal amplitude profiles, however, matched qualitatively at best. During an extended postmidnight interval, which we associate with an interval of omega bands, multiple highly localized MPEs occurred independently in time at each station in both hemispheres. These nighttime MPEs occurred under a wide range of geomagnetic conditions, but common to each was a negative interplanetary magnetic field Bz that exhibited at least a modest increase at or near the time of the event. A comparison of perturbation amplitudes to modeled ionospheric conductances in conjugate hemispheres clearly favored a current generator model over a voltage generator model for three of the four events; neither model provided a good fit for the premidnight event that occurred near vernal equinox.
|
|
