ArticleStereotactic and functional neurosurgery2025
Reoperation Rates and Risk Factors after Spinal Cord Stimulation Revision Surgery.
Article in Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, 2025. 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.
- Risk Factors Associated with Spinal Cord Stimulation Failure in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for patients with refractory chronic pain. Despite its efficacy, rates of reoperation after initial implantation of SCS remain high. While revision rates after index SCS surgeries are well reported, less is known about rates and risk factors associated with repeat reoperations. We sought to evaluate patient, clinical, and surgical characteristics associated with repeat reoperation among patients who underwent an initial SCS revision procedure.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent SCS revision surgery performed at a single institution between 2008 and 2022. Patients were stratified by whether they underwent a single revision (SR) or multiple revision (MR) surgeries. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors associated with repeat SCS revision. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare rates of devices requiring revision across groups.
resultsA total of 54 patients underwent an initial SCS revision. Of these, 15 (28%) underwent a second revision. The most common indication for revision surgery was lead migration (65%). No significant differences were observed in age, body mass index, comorbidities, lead type, and revision indication among the SR and MR groups. On multivariate adjusted analysis, only cervical lead position was significantly associated with repeat reoperation (OR 7.10, 95% CI [1.14, 44.3], p = 0.036). Time to reoperation after a single and MR SCS surgeries did not differ.
conclusionsAmong patients who undergo SCS reoperation, a substantial portion requires additional revisions. Cervical lead placement may be associated with a higher risk of repeat revision surgery compared to thoracic lead positioning. Consideration of lead positioning in the decision to perform and undergo reoperation may therefore result in lower revision rates and improved clinical outcomes among SCS patients with MRs.
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.