Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has developed into a reliable non-invasive clinical and scientific tool over the past decade. Specifically, it has undergone several validating clinical trials that demonstrated high agreement with intraoperative direct electrical stimulation (DES), which paved the way for increasing application for the purpose of motor mapping in patients harboring motor-eloquent intracranial neoplasms. Based on this clinical use case of the technique, in this article we review the evidence for the feasibility of motor mapping and derived models (risk stratification and prediction, nTMS-based fiber tracking, improvement of clinical outcome, and assessment of functional plasticity), and provide collected sets of evidence for the applicability of quantitative mapping with nTMS. In addition, we provide evidence-based demonstrations on factors that ensure methodological feasibility and accuracy of the motor mapping procedure. We demonstrate that selection of the stimulation intensity (SI) for nTMS and spatial density of stimuli are crucial factors for applying motor mapping accurately, while also demonstrating the effect on the motor maps. We conclude that while the application of nTMS motor mapping has been impressively spread over the past decade, there are still variations in the applied protocols and parameters, which could be optimized for the purpose of reliable quantitative mapping.

As one of the most common neurological diseases in children, epilepsy affects 0.9-2% of children. Complex interactions among the etiologies of epilepsy, interictal discharges, seizures, and antiepileptic drugs lead to cognitive impairments in children with epilepsy. Since epilepsy is considered as a network disorder, in which seizures have a widespread impact on many parts of the brain, childhood epilepsy can even affect the normal development of language. About 25% of children with epilepsy do not respond to medications; therefore, brain surgery is considered as a treatment option for some of them. Presurgical neuropsychological evaluations including language mapping are recommended to preserve cognitive and language abilities of patients after surgery. Functional magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive technique for presurgical language mapping has been widely recommended in many epileptic centers. The present study reviewed language representation and presurgical language mapping in children with epilepsy. Mapping language in children with epilepsy helps to localize the epileptogenic zone, and also, to predict the cognitive outcome of epilepsy surgery and possible cognitive rehabilitation. This review collected information about language representation and language mapping in pediatric epilepsy settings.

Background: Electric and magnetic source imaging methods (ESI, MSI) estimate the location in the brain of the sources generating the interictal epileptiform discharges (II-ESI, II-MSI) and the ictal activity (IC-ESI, IC-MSI). These methods provide potentially valuable clinical information in the presurgical evaluation of patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, evaluated for surgical therapy. In spite of the significant technical advances in this field, and the numerous papers published on clinical validation of these methods, ESI and MSI are still underutilized in most epilepsy centers performing a presurgical evaluation. Our goal was to review and summarize the published evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of interictal and ictal ESI and MSI in epilepsy surgery. Methods: We searched the literature for papers on ESI and MSI that specified the diagnostic reference standard as the site of resection and the postoperative outcome (seizure-freedom). We extracted data from the selected studies, to calculate the diagnostic accuracy measures. Results: Our search resulted in 797 studies; 48 studies fulfilled the selection criteria (25 ESI and 23 MSI studies), providing data from 1,152 operated patients (515 for II-ESI, 440 for II-MSI, 159 for IC-ESI, and 38 for IC-MSI). The sensitivity of source imaging methods was between 74 and 90% (highest for IC-ESI). The specificity of the source imaging methods was between 20 and 54% (highest for II-MSI). The overall accuracy was between 50 and 75% (highest for IC-ESI). Diagnostic Odds Ratio was between 0.8 (IC-MSI) and 4.02-7.9 (II-ESI < II-MSI < IC-ESI). Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence for the accuracy of source imaging in presurgical evaluation of patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. These methods have high sensitivity (up to 90%) and diagnostic odds ratio (up to 7.9), but the specificity is lower (up to 54%). ESI and MSI should be included in the multimodal presurgical evaluation.

Management of MRI-negative patients with intractable focal epilepsy after failed surgery is particularly challenging. In this study, we aim to investigate whether MRI post-processing could identify relevant targets for the re-evaluation of MRI-negative patients who failed the initial resective surgery. We examined a consecutive series of 56 MRI-negative patients who underwent resective surgery and had recurring seizures at 1-year follow-up. T1-weighted volumetric sequence from the pre-surgical MRI was used for voxel-based MRI post-processing which was implemented in a morphometric analysis program (MAP). MAP was positive in 15 of the 56 patients included in this study. In 5 patients, the MAP+ regions were fully resected. In 10 patients, the MAP+ regions were not or partially resected: two out of the 10 patients had a second surgery including the unresected MAP+ region, and both became seizure-free; the remaining 8 patients did not undergo further surgery, but the unresected MAP+ regions were concordant with more than one noninvasive modality in 7. In the 8 patients who had unresected MAP+ regions and intracranial-EEG before the previous surgery, the unresected MAP+ regions were concordant with ictal onset in 6. Our data suggest that scrutiny of the presurgical MRI guided by MRI post-processing may reveal relevant targets for reoperation in nonlesional epilepsies. MAP findings, when concordant with the patient\'s other noninvasive data, should be considered when planning invasive evaluation/reoperation for this most challenging group of patients.