Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32576946›Full record

SynthesisSpinal cord2020

Complications of epidural spinal stimulation: lessons from the past and alternatives for the future.

Giuliano Taccola, Sean Barber, Phillip J Horner, Humberto A Cerrel Bazo, Dimitry Sayenko

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cardiovascular safety of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation in cervical spinal cord injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Spinal Cord Stimulation for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Bioheat Model of Spinal Column Heating During High-Density Spinal Cord Stimulation.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Neuroprotective effects of interleukin 10 in spinal cord injury.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023
    Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Giuliano TaccolaNeuroscience Department, International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Bonomea 265, Trieste, Italy. taccola@sissa.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2675-1438
Sean BarberDepartment of Neurosurgery, Center for Neuroregeneration, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Phillip J HornerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Center for Neuroregeneration, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Humberto A Cerrel BazoOspedale Riabilitativo di Alta Specializzazione (ORAS)-ULSS 2 TV, Motta di Livenza, TV, Italy.
Dimitry SayenkoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Center for Neuroregeneration, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA. dgsayenko@houstonmethodist.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4154-6873
Houston Methodist · USUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review.

objectivesOver the past decade, an increasing number of studies have demonstrated that epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can successfully assist with neurorehabilitation following spinal cord injury (SCI). This approach is quickly garnering the attention of clinicians. Therefore, the potential benefits of individuals undergoing epidural SCS therapy to regain sensorimotor and autonomic control, must be considered along with the lessons learned from other studies on the risks associated with implantable systems.

methodsSystematic analysis of literature, as well as preclinical and clinical reports.

resultsThe use of SCS for neuropathic pain management has revealed that epidural electrodes can lose their therapeutic effects over time and lead to complications, such as electrode migration, infection, foreign body reactions, and even SCI. Several authors have also described the formation of a mass composed of glia, collagen, and fibrosis around epidural electrodes. Clinically, this mass can cause myelopathy and spinal compression, and it is only treatable by surgically removing both the electrode and scar tissue.

conclusionsIn order to reduce the risk of encapsulation, many innovative efforts focus on technological improvements of electrode biocompatibility; however, they require time and resources to develop and confirm safety and efficiency. Alternatively, some studies have demonstrated similar outcomes of non-invasive, transcutaneous SCS following SCI to those seen with epidural SCS, without the complications associated with implanted electrodes. Thus, transcutaneous SCS can be proposed as a promising candidate for a safer and more accessible SCS modality for some individuals with SCI.

Indexed as

Epidural SpaceElectrodes, ImplantedForecastingHumansNeurological RehabilitationSpinal Cord CompressionSpinal Cord InjuriesSpinal Cord Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32576946
OpenAlexW3036019160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.