ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Technical note: preliminary surgical experience with a new implantable epicranial stimulation device for chronic focal cortex stimulation in drug-resistant epilepsy.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal interference stimulation for deep brain neuromodulation in humans.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Two-year outcomes of epicranial focal cortex stimulation in pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Therapy response prediction of focal cortex stimulation based on clinical parameters: a multicentre, non-interventional study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study is to report some preliminary surgical considerations and outcomes after the first implantations of a new and commercially available implantable epicranial stimulation device for focal epilepsy.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from clinical notes. Outcome parameters were as follows: wound healing, surgery time, and adverse events.
resultsFive patients were included (17-52 y/o; 3 female). Epicranial systems were uneventfully implanted under neuronavigation guidance. Some minor adverse events occurred. Wound healing in primary intention was seen in all patients. Out of these surgeries, certain concepts were developed: Skin incisions had to be significantly larger than expected. S-shaped incisions appeared to be a good choice in typical locations behind the hairline. Preoperative discussions between neurologist and neurosurgeon are mandatory in order to allow for the optimal coverage of the epileptogenic zone with the electrode geometry.
conclusionIn this first small series, we were able to show safe implantation of this new epicranial stimulation device. The use of neuronavigation is strongly recommended. The procedure is simple but not trivial and ideally belongs in the hands of a neurosurgeon.
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.