ReviewBrain & spine2024
Meta-analysis and review of rechargeable implantable pulse generators for spinal cord stimulation and deep brain stimulation.
Review in Brain & spine, 2024. 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.
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
Introduction: Neuromodulation through deep brain stimulation (DBS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a successful therapy for various neurological disorders, such as movement disorders and chronic pain. Implantable pulse generators (IPGs) are pivotal in these therapies, available as either rechargeable (r-IPGs) or non-rechargeable (nr-IPGs). Research question: To perform a meta-analysis on r-IPGs. Methods: A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, focusing on studies published from January 2005 to August 2023. Included studies comprised clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and comparative studies involving human subjects. Data extraction focused on patient demographics, stimulation types, battery characteristics, and complications. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analyses were performed using SPSS software. Results: Nine studies involving 288 patients with rechargeable IPGs (r-IPGs) for SCS and 257 patients with r-IPGs for DBS met the inclusion criteria. r-IPGs exhibited low rates of surgical revisions and infections, with surgical revision rates of 8.87% for SCS and 5.45% for DBS, and infection rates of 2.6% for SCS and 1.56% for DBS. Charge burden was comparable with 97.34 min and 93.41 min per week for SCS and DBS respectively. Correlation analyses indicated that longer battery recharge times were associated with an increased incidence of complications, including unintentional interruptions and hardware failures. Discussion: r-IPGs may offer substantial benefits in reducing re-operation rates and complications associated. Nonetheless, careful management of battery charging is crucial to maximize these benefits. Establishing international guidelines for the use of r-IPGs in specific patient populations and conditions is recommended to standardize and optimize outcomes.
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.