In the current issue
The Implantation Honeymoon—Who Gets the Credit: Implant, Stimulation, or Time?
When seizures change after intracranial electrodes are implanted but before stimulation begins, who gets the credit: the implant, the stimulation, or time itself?
Episode 19 makes the newest adult SEEG study the clinical anchor, then moves from reported seizures to scheduled RNS ECoG, rare no-stimulation cases, a disclosed single-center AES abstract from the editor's own group, and an implanted-sham randomized trial. The central lesson is methodological: postimplant change is observable, but causation is hard to assign when medication, recovery, regression to the mean, surveillance, sampling, expectation, and stimulation overlap.
For epileptologists, epilepsy fellows, and surgical epilepsy teams. This episode is educational and is not a clinical guideline.
In this issue6 topics
- Some adults reported fewer seizures after SEEG electrode insertion, but the study design cannot show that implantation caused the improvement.
- During intracranial monitoring, implantation was linked to a modest delay before the first seizure—not a clear reduction in daily seizure frequency.
- RNS brain recordings can keep changing for months after surgery, but an evolving electrical signal does not by itself mean seizures are improving.
- Rare RNS and DBS cases show that improvement can begin before stimulation, while medication changes, recovery, and natural seizure variability remain possible explanations.
- A single-center abstract from AED editor Erafat Rehim's group suggests early postimplant change may predict later RNS response, but the finding remains unvalidated.
- In the sham-controlled NAUTILUS trial, active stimulation did not meet the prespecified effectiveness endpoint; later supportive analyses do not replace that primary result.