Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41768597›Full record

ArticleEpilepsy currents2026

Learning From Our Failures: When Anterior Temporal Lobectomies Fail.

Lia Ernst, Kathryn A Davis, Michael D Staudt, Chris Tailby, Sisira Yadala, Chengyuan Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsy currents, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lia ErnstDepartment of Neurology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8496-5464
Kathryn A DavisDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7020-6480
Michael D StaudtDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9123-136X
Chris TailbyCognition Group, Epilepsy Imaging Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia.
Sisira YadalaDepartment of Neurology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Chengyuan WuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3954-2929

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) remains the standard surgical treatment for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy, yet 20% to 30% of patients experience persistent seizures and/or unfavorable neuropsychological outcomes. These results highlight that postoperative success is influenced not only by the technical execution of surgery but also by the accuracy with which epileptogenic networks are characterized. As such, we consider ATL failure through 2 broad mechanisms: incomplete treatment of the presumed epileptogenic network and limitations in the initial diagnostic understanding of the epileptogenic network. It is also becoming more evident that seizure outcomes alone do not fully capture surgical success, as cognitive, psychiatric, and functional consequences play a critical role in long-term quality of life. Drawing on contemporary evidence and discussions from the Temporal Lobe Club Special Interest Group at the 2025 American Epilepsy Society Annual Meeting, we present a framework for conceptualizing, reevaluating, and managing patients following ATL failure.

Indexed as

drug-resistant epilepsyneuropsychologysurgerysurgical failurestemporal lobe epilepsy

Identifiers

PMID41768597
PMCPMC12935573

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.