ArticleInterventional pain medicine2022
Cervical spinal cord stimulator trial complicated by epidural abscess.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2022. 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.
- Epidural spread of surgical site infection from spinal cord stimulation trial.Pain management · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Back ground: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a growing interventional treatment modality in patients experiencing intractable pain refractory to conservative treatments. Many patients with chronic low back and leg pain that persists after surgery have found pain relief, and more evidence is suggesting that chronic upper limb and neck pain may respond just as well to this therapy. However, the placement of foreign body, for instance SCS leads, in the epidural space can become the source for deep intra-spinal infection. Case report: We present a 49-year-old robust male who underwent a temporary cervical SCS trial and was diagnosed with epidural abscess on the day 9 when the leads were pulled. The trial phase was complicated by immediate and prolonged post procedure pain. The diagnosis of epidural abscess was made soon after clinical presentation with no neurological deficits or escalation in pain but new onset fever. He made a complete recovery after extensive laminectomy and antibiotic treatment. Conclusion: The decision to extend the SCS trial length poses a question of risk versus benefit in regards to potential infectious complications versus pain relief. Continuing antibiotic therapy during a SCS trial phase is a possible strategy but of uncertain benefit. Categories: Anesthesiology, Pain Management.
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.