OBJECTIVE Invasive monitoring has long been utilized in the evaluation of patients for epilepsy surgery, providing localizing information to guide resection. Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) was introduced at the authors' level 4 epilepsy surgery program in 2013, with responsive neurostimulation (RNS) becoming available the following year. The authors sought to characterize patient demographics and epilepsy-related variables before and after SEEG introduction to understand whether differences emerged in their patient population. This information will be useful in understanding how SEEG, possibly in conjunction with RNS availability, may have changed practice patterns over time. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent surgery for epilepsy from 2006 to 2018, comprising 7 years before and 5 years after the introduction of SEEG. The authors performed univariate analyses of patient characteristics and outcomes and used generalized estimating equations logistic regression for predictive analysis. RESULTS A total of 178 patients were analyzed, with 109 patients in the pre-SEEG cohort and 69 patients in the post- SEEG cohort. In the post-SEEG cohort, more patients underwent invasive monitoring for suspected bilateral seizure onsets (40.6% vs 22.0%, p = 0.01) and extratemporal seizure onsets (68.1% vs 8.3%, p < 0.0001). The post-SEEG cohort had a higher proportion of patients with seizures arising from eloquent cortex (14.5% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001). Twelve patients underwent RNS insertion in the post-SEEG group versus none in the pre-SEEG group. Fewer patients underwent resection in the post-SEEG group (55.1% vs 96.3%, p < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference in rates of seizure freedom between cohorts for those patients having undergone a follow-up resection (53.1% vs 59.8%, p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate that more patients with suspected bilateral, eloquent, or extratemporal epilepsy underwent invasive monitoring after adoption of SEEG. This shift occurred coincident with the adoption of RNS, both of which likely contributed to increased patient complexity. The authors conclude that their practice now considers invasive monitoring for patients who likely would not previously have been candidates for surgical investigation and subsequent intervention.