The performance of the presurgical test (preSurg) for temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) was evaluated via video-electroencephalography (VEEG), electroencephalography (EEG), 99mTc-HmPAO single-photon emission tomography (SPECT) and 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a group of 112 men (37.0 ± 1.1 years) and 106 women (39.7 ± 1.1 years) operated on for TLE. The epileptic zone (EZ) was adequately identified to determine whether the patient reached an Engel I grade (EI) at least one year postop. Accuracy was evaluated by the coefficient α, ranging from 3 (when result = EZ) to 2 (result in the same hemisphere as the EZ), 1 (noninformative result) or 0 (EZ in the contralateral hemisphere). The simplicity of diagnosis was defined as the number of preSurg surgeries needed to identify the EZ. EI was obtained in 85.8% of patients even though 42.2% of patients had noninformative MRI results. For preSurg α was (mean ± SEM) = VEEG (2.83 ± 0.04) > MRI (2.14 ± 0.08) > EEG (1.87 ± 0.09) > SPECT (1.71 ± 0.09). The accuracy (combination of sensitivity and specificity) was calculated as follows: VEEG (0.797) > MRI (0.518) > EEG (0.446) > SPECT (0.360). The likelihood positive ratio was greater, and the likelihood negative ratio was lower for VEEG. The most relevant factor for the regression model was VEEG (3.106) > MRI (2.558) > EEG (1.905), and the factors were not significantly related to SPECT. EZs in EI patients with low simplicity were identified mainly by VEEG. A very good postoperative outcome can be obtained even in TLE patients with no lesions on MRI. The VEEG is the most reliable preSurg test and may be the only reliable test for patients with very low simplicity (i.e., difficult).single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article’s main findings; (4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article and it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.