Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series

Objective: To describe functional outcomes following discharge from an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) in patients following epilepsy surgery, comparing laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) versus surgical resection for epilepsy. Design: Retrospective case series. Setting: Academi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: David Sherwood, Alan Tran, Benjamin Gill, Benjamin Westerhaus, Alexandra Arickx, Patrick Landazuri, Sarah Eickmeyer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
Series:The Journal of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jisprm.org/article.asp?issn=2349-7904;year=2021;volume=4;issue=2;spage=77;epage=81;aulast=Sherwood
id doaj-6dcc33ec33594d429b000b772012562b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6dcc33ec33594d429b000b772012562b2021-07-07T13:41:57ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsThe Journal of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine2589-94572021-01-0142778110.4103/JISPRM-000116Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case seriesDavid SherwoodAlan TranBenjamin GillBenjamin WesterhausAlexandra ArickxPatrick LandazuriSarah EickmeyerObjective: To describe functional outcomes following discharge from an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) in patients following epilepsy surgery, comparing laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) versus surgical resection for epilepsy. Design: Retrospective case series. Setting: Academic tertiary hospital. Participants: Eight patients who received LITT (n = 3) or surgical resection (n = 5) for epilepsy. Interventions: Acute inpatient rehabilitation. Main Outcome Measures: Functional independence measure (FIM), seizure incidence, discharge destination. Level of Evidence: IV. Results: The epilepsy cohort demonstrated a FIM change of 38.88 (vs. national average 29.55), average length of stay (LOS) of 15.13 days (vs. 13.38 days), and LOS efficiency was 3.4 (vs. 2.68). No patients in the epilepsy cohort were discharged to acute care hospital compared to a national average of 9.82%. Eighty-seven percent in the epilepsy cohort discharged to home (vs. 77%) and 12.5% to skilled nursing facility (vs. 11.90%). Between the subset who received LITT and those who received surgical resection, there was no statistically significant change in mean total FIM change (43.7 vs. 36), FIM efficiency (5.3 vs. 2.2), or FIM change in subset measures of memory (0.5 vs. 0.25) or problem solving (0 vs. 0.8). There was no statistical significance between groups in adverse events, including seizure. Conclusions: Outcome measures in this population appear to be consistent with national outcome measures for other IRF diagnoses. This suggests that acute inpatient rehabilitation should be considered after patients undergo surgical intervention for epilepsy. However, a larger sample size and controlled studies are necessary before generalizations can be made. In addition, no statistically significant functional difference was seen between patients who underwent LITT or surgical resection.http://www.jisprm.org/article.asp?issn=2349-7904;year=2021;volume=4;issue=2;spage=77;epage=81;aulast=Sherwoodepilepsyneurosurgeryacute inpatient rehabilitation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author David Sherwood
Alan Tran
Benjamin Gill
Benjamin Westerhaus
Alexandra Arickx
Patrick Landazuri
Sarah Eickmeyer
spellingShingle David Sherwood
Alan Tran
Benjamin Gill
Benjamin Westerhaus
Alexandra Arickx
Patrick Landazuri
Sarah Eickmeyer
Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series
The Journal of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
epilepsy
neurosurgery
acute inpatient rehabilitation
author_facet David Sherwood
Alan Tran
Benjamin Gill
Benjamin Westerhaus
Alexandra Arickx
Patrick Landazuri
Sarah Eickmeyer
author_sort David Sherwood
title Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series
title_short Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series
title_full Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series
title_fullStr Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: A case series
title_sort outcomes after acute inpatient rehabilitation following epilepsy surgery: a case series
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series The Journal of the International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
issn 2589-9457
publishDate 2021-01-01
description Objective: To describe functional outcomes following discharge from an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) in patients following epilepsy surgery, comparing laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) versus surgical resection for epilepsy. Design: Retrospective case series. Setting: Academic tertiary hospital. Participants: Eight patients who received LITT (n = 3) or surgical resection (n = 5) for epilepsy. Interventions: Acute inpatient rehabilitation. Main Outcome Measures: Functional independence measure (FIM), seizure incidence, discharge destination. Level of Evidence: IV. Results: The epilepsy cohort demonstrated a FIM change of 38.88 (vs. national average 29.55), average length of stay (LOS) of 15.13 days (vs. 13.38 days), and LOS efficiency was 3.4 (vs. 2.68). No patients in the epilepsy cohort were discharged to acute care hospital compared to a national average of 9.82%. Eighty-seven percent in the epilepsy cohort discharged to home (vs. 77%) and 12.5% to skilled nursing facility (vs. 11.90%). Between the subset who received LITT and those who received surgical resection, there was no statistically significant change in mean total FIM change (43.7 vs. 36), FIM efficiency (5.3 vs. 2.2), or FIM change in subset measures of memory (0.5 vs. 0.25) or problem solving (0 vs. 0.8). There was no statistical significance between groups in adverse events, including seizure. Conclusions: Outcome measures in this population appear to be consistent with national outcome measures for other IRF diagnoses. This suggests that acute inpatient rehabilitation should be considered after patients undergo surgical intervention for epilepsy. However, a larger sample size and controlled studies are necessary before generalizations can be made. In addition, no statistically significant functional difference was seen between patients who underwent LITT or surgical resection.
topic epilepsy
neurosurgery
acute inpatient rehabilitation
url http://www.jisprm.org/article.asp?issn=2349-7904;year=2021;volume=4;issue=2;spage=77;epage=81;aulast=Sherwood
work_keys_str_mv AT davidsherwood outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
AT alantran outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
AT benjamingill outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
AT benjaminwesterhaus outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
AT alexandraarickx outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
AT patricklandazuri outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
AT saraheickmeyer outcomesafteracuteinpatientrehabilitationfollowingepilepsysurgeryacaseseries
_version_ 1721315482401767424