ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Vagus nerve stimulation: a 20-year Australian experience.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The physiology, anatomy and stimulation of the vagus nerve in epilepsy.The Journal of physiology · 2025Review
- How I do it: surgical techniques for vagus nerve stimulation in pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Single-center long-term results of vagus nerve stimulation for pediatric epilepsy: a 10-17-year follow-up study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy was first approved in the mid-1990s in the USA, Europe and Australia, with demonstrable efficacy in paediatric populations. Benefit in seizure frequency reduction can be observed up to 2 years post-intervention; however, few studies assess outcomes beyond this period. Furthermore, paediatric cohort sizes are small, limiting generalisability of outcome assessments. We evaluate VNS insertion outcomes and complications or side-effects in a large paediatric cohort, over a 20-year period from Queensland's first VNS insertion.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted of all paediatric VNS insertions at the Queensland Children's Hospital (QCH) and the Mater Children's Hospital/Mater Children's Private Hospital (MCH/MCPH) Brisbane. A minimum of 1-year follow-up from 1999 to 2020 was required for inclusion. Patients were assessed on demographics, epilepsy details, seizure outcomes and complications or side-effects.
resultsIn this extended follow-up cohort (76 patients, 7.2 ± 5.3 years), 51.3% of patients had ≥ 50% seizure frequency reduction, while 73.7% experienced an Engel III outcome (worthwhile benefit) or better. Eleven patients (14.9%) were seizure-free at follow-up, and 81.6% retained long-term therapy. Stimulation-related side-effects are common (17.1%) but rarely result in stimulation cessation (3.9%). Cessation occurred in 14 patients (18.4%) and most commonly related to minimal benefit (13.2%). Demographics, aetiology, seizure nature and surgical factors did not influence outcomes.
conclusionOver extended treatment periods, a large proportion of patients will benefit significantly from VNS therapy. Approximately 4 of 5 patients will retain VNS therapy, and in cases of cessation, this is most commonly related to minimal benefit. Underlying demographics, aetiology or seizure nature do not influence outcomes. This 20-year Queensland assessment of VNS therapy outcomes informs long-term expectation of VNS therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34755209What 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.