| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2017 | Volume
: 4
| Issue : 3 | Page : 57-61 |
|
|
Benign epileptiform variant electroencephalography
Frank A Imarhiagbe1, Oladunni V Ogundare1, Abiodun L Azeez2
1 Department of Medicine, Neurology Unit, Benin City, Nigeria
2 Department of Surgery, Division of Neurological Surgery, University of Benin Teaching Hospital, Benin City, Nigeria
Correspondence Address:
Frank A Imarhiagbe
P.O. Box 7184, GPO, Benin City
Nigeria
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ssajm.ssajm_1_17
|
|
|
Background: Benign Epileptiform Variant EEG (BEV), are suspicious but innocuous EEG that are not predictive of epilepsy. The confident detection of BEV in routine EEG is vital so as not to misinterpret them as pathological, with its attendant clinical and sundry consequences.
Objective: To profile BEV in routine EEG.
Materials and Methods: Two hundred seventeen consecutive routine EEG done in 2013–2014 were reviewed for demographics of age and sex of the subjects, indications for EEG or clinical diagnosis, mental state of subjects during EEG procedure, EEG diagnosis and BEV. Operationally, EEG was done with an 18 channel machine without video recording and mental state of subjects was either awake and relaxed with eyes closed or asleep in uncooperative patients. Sleep was induced with parenteral or oral diazepam or chlorpheniramine. Procedure was done by EEG technologists and all records were interpreted by Consultant Neurologists.
Results: The prevalence of BEV was 13.8%, mean age of subjects with BEV was significantly higher than that of subjects with essentially normal and abnormal EEG, sex distribution and handedness were however not significantly different. The distribution of BEV was wickets (5.5%), SREDA (4.1 %), FIRDA (1.4 %), RTTD (0.5%), Phantom spikes or 6-Hz spikes (1.0%) and POSTS (1.4%).
Conclusion: BEV may be relatively infrequent in routine EEG, however their detection prevents the untoward consequences and the attendant clinical and other effects that a misinterpretation of EEG engenders. A second or third opinion is advised where there is equivocation in routine EEG or when BEV is suspected. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
