ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Techniques to mitigate lead migration for percutaneous trials of cervical spinal cord stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a clinical neuromodulation technique that is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, with patients typically undergoing a one-week percutaneous trial phase before permanent implantation. Traditional SCS involves stimulation of the thoracic spinal cord, but there has been substantial recent interest in cervical SCS to treat upper extremity pain, restore sensation from the missing hand after amputation, or restore motor function to paretic limbs in people with stroke and spinal cord injury. Because of the additional mobility of the neck, as compared to the trunk, lead migration can be a major challenge for cervical SCS, especially during the percutaneous trial phase. The objective of this study was to optimize the implantation procedure of cervical SCS leads to minimize lead migration and increase lead stability during SCS trials. Methods: In this study, four subjects underwent percutaneous placement of three SCS leads targeting the cervical spinal segments as part of a clinical trial aiming to restore sensation for people with upper-limb amputation. The leads were maintained for up to 29 days and weekly x-ray imaging was used to measure rostrocaudal and mediolateral lead migration based on bony landmarks. Results and discussion: Lead migration was primarily confined to the rostrocaudal axis with the most migration occurring during the first week. Iterative improvements to the implantation procedure were implemented to increase lead stability across subjects. There was a decrease in lead migration for patients who had more rostral placement of the SCS leads. The average migration from the day of lead implant to lead removal was 29.7 mm for Subject 1 (lead placement ranging from T3-T4 to T1-T2), 41.9 mm for Subject 2 (T2-T3 to C7-T1), 1.9 mm for Subject 3 (T1-T2 to C7-T1), and 16.6 mm for Subject 4 (T1-T2 to C7-T1). We found that initial placement of spinal cord stimulator leads in the cervical epidural space as rostral as possible was critical to minimizing subsequent rostrocaudal lead migration.
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.