Beyond focal and generalized: are we classifying seizures, or helping patients? A provocative reappraisal of epilepsy classification in the era of therapeutic pathways.
TL;DR
It is argued that classification should elevate therapeutic trajectory over electroclinical phenomenology, and it is proposed an Interventional Axis built around three pathways: focal resection, neuromodulation, and palliative surgery, operating in parallel with pharmacotherapy rather than after its serial failure.
Abstract
Every revision of the seizure classification-most recently the 2025 International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) update-refines terminology, yet it is worth asking whether patients are treated better because their seizures were renamed. The focal versus generalized dichotomy has organized epilepsy classification since the 1960 s and is grounded in a pharmacologic rationale, but head-to-head data from the SANAD trials show that efficacy differences between individual antiseizure medications frequently equal or exceed differences across the focal/generalized boundary. Meanwhile, the distinction that is genuinely transformative-whether an epilepsy is surgically remediable-produces seizure-freedom differences of an entirely different order of magnitude, and yet epilepsy surgery remains among the most underutilized evidence-based treatments in medicine. We argue that classification should elevate therapeutic trajectory over electroclinical phenomenology, and we propose an Interventional Axis built around three pathways: focal resection, neuromodulation, and palliative surgery, operating in parallel with pharmacotherapy rather than after its serial failure. Refining terminology improves communication, but the ultimate metric of a classification is outcome, not taxonomic elegance.