Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025

Stereo-Electro-Encephalo-Graphy SEEG With Robotic Assistance in the Presurgical Evaluation of Medical Refractory Epilepsy: A Technical Note
Published on: June 13, 2016
Developing and Implementing a Standardized Ictal Examination in the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit
Susanna S O'Kula1, Lisa Faillace1, Catherine V Kulick-Soper1
1Department of Neurology (SSO'K), New York University; Department of Neurology (LF, CVK-S, SR-E, KAD), University of Pennsylvania; Department of Neurology (JR), Jefferson Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Neurology (AK), Emory University, Atlanta, GA; and Department of Neurology (CEH), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Background:
The ictal examination is crucial for neuroanatomic localization of seizure onset, which informs medical and neurosurgical treatment of epilepsy. Substantial variation exists in ictal examination performance in epilepsy monitoring units (EMUs). We developed and implemented a standardized examination to facilitate rapid, reliable execution of all testing domains and adherence to patient safety maneuvers.
Methods:
Following observation of examination performance, root cause analysis of barriers, and review of consensus guidelines, an ictal examination was developed and disseminated. In accordance with quality improvement methodology, revisions were enacted following the initial intervention, including differentiation between pathways for convulsive and nonconvulsive seizures. We evaluated ictal examination fidelity, efficiency, and EMU staff satisfaction before and after the intervention.
Results:
We identified barriers to ictal examination performance as confusion regarding ictal examination protocol, inadequate education of the rationale for the examination and its components, and lack of awareness of patient-specific goals. Over an 18-month period, 100 ictal examinations were reviewed, 50 convulsive and 50 nonconvulsive. Ictal examination performance varied during the study period without sustained improvement for convulsive or nonconvulsive seizure examination. The new examination was faster to perform (0.8 vs 1.5 minutes). Postintervention, EMU staff expressed satisfaction with the examination, but many still did not understand why certain components were performed.
Conclusion:
We identified key barriers to EMU ictal assessment and completed real-world testing of a standardized, streamlined ictal examination. We found it challenging to reliably change ictal examination performance in our EMU; further study of implementation is warranted.
More Related Videos
10:23Equipment Setup and Artifact Removal for Simultaneous Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Clinical Review in Epilepsy
Published on: June 23, 2023
10:22Interictal High Frequency Oscillations Detected with Simultaneous Magnetoencephalography and Electroencephalography as Biomarker of Pediatric Epilepsy
Published on: December 6, 2016