ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Case lessons2024
Intrathecal placement of percutaneous spinal cord stimulation leads: illustrative cases.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons, 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.
- Meningioma with trabecular architecture: a harbinger of BAP1 deficiency.Brain tumor pathology · 2026Article
- Functional motor mapping of domestic pig lumbar spinal cord using penetrating microelectrodes.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Erroneous intramedullary placement of spinal cord stimulator: A case report and review of the literature.Surgical neurology international · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS), including the percutaneous placement of epidural stimulation leads, has been increasingly utilized to treat chronic pain. Although lead migration is a well-characterized complication, few studies have reported on malpositioned leads in the intrathecal space. Here, the authors discuss two cases of intrathecal lead placement necessitating surgical revision. OBSERVATIONS: This report is a two-case series on the inadvertent placement of percutaneous SCS leads in the intrathecal space. The authors describe the identification of malpositioned leads, describe the clinical presentation, characterize stimulation parameters, and report improvement following neurosurgical revision for each case. Two patients originally presenting with chronic low-back pain underwent percutaneous SCS lead implantation. Both patients presented with atypical pain symptoms in the acute to subacute postprocedural period, raising suspicion for malpositioned leads. Imaging was consistent with intrathecal malpositioning. Both patients underwent revision surgery resulting in symptomatic improvement. LESSONS: Indicators of malpositioned thoracic SCS leads in the intrathecal space include thoracoabdominal or flank pain exacerbated by movement, insufficient pain relief versus that in the SCS trial, very low electrode impedances, direct visualization on imaging, and lack of epidural lead visualization following laminectomy. Revision options include removal of the intrathecal leads and the surgical placement of a paddle electrode in the epidural space. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24275.
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.