ArticleSurgical neurology international2023
Spinal cord stimulation-induced gastroparesis: A case report.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) involves the utilization of an implantable neurostimulation device, stereotypically used in the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain. While these devices have been shown to have significant clinical benefits, there have also been documented potential complications, including the risk of infection, fractured electrodes, electrode migration, and lack of symptom improvement. In addition, there has been minimal documentation on gastrointestinal (GI) side effects after SCS implantation. Case Description: A 42-year-old patient with chronic axial and radicular neuropathic pain in her back and left leg status post multiple lumbar surgeries underwent implantation of an open paddle lead in the T8-T9 region. After the procedure, the patient endorsed a 50% decrease in pain at the 6-week follow-up with no further concerns. However, at the 18 months follow-up, the patient endorsed severe constipation when the SCS was turned on, leading to subsequent evaluation by gastroenterology, motility studies, and a thorough bowel regimen. Symptoms persisted, and the patient ultimately opted for the removal of the SCS implant at 21 months after the initial surgery. Conclusion: While the exact mechanism behind the GI side effects endorsed in this patient is unknown, current literature postulates a variety of theories, including a SCS-induced parasympathetic blockade of the GI tract. Further, investigation is needed to determine the exact effects of SCS on the GI tract.
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.