ArticlePain and therapy2021
Failure of SCS MR-Conditional Modes Due to High Impedance: A Review of Literature and Case Series.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- History of SCS and patient-focused innovations: a manufacturer's perspective on the role of technology.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Review
- Multifidus Fat Infiltration in Patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Preliminary Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Neuromodulation Techniques in Chronic Refractory Coccydynia: A Narrative Review.Pain and therapy · 2024Review
- MR-conditionality failure modes: a comparison across various spinal cord stimulators.Pain management · 2024Review
- Bioheat Model of Spinal Column Heating During High-Density Spinal Cord Stimulation.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2023Article
- Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model - A Narrative Review.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) conditional modes are a novel feature for certain Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices. However, there is a paucity of literature around the limitation of MRI-conditional modes ("MRI safe"), specifically in clinical scenarios where urgent MRIs may be needed. One such limitation is load impedance, referring to the circuit's resistance to the current being generated by the system. High impedance can limit the MRI-conditional mode capability, presenting potential harm to a patient undergoing an MRI or make an MRI unable to be completed.
methodsThree cases were identified, and informed consent was obtained. All information was obtained via retrospective chart review.
resultsIn this case series of three patients where MRI-conditional SCS systems were unable to be placed in "MRI safe" settings, preventing timely MRI study completion in the setting of high impedance, all three were required to undergo alternative imaging including CT scans, and two patients ultimately had the system explanted and one chose to be re-implanted after completion of scans.
conclusionThis case series highlights the need for further investigation of impedance in SCS systems and potential limitations for future MRI usage. The review of literature of impedance in SCS shows both device- and physiologic-related etiologies for changes in impedance that warrant consideration by the implanting physician.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.