Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40308379›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medical case reports2025

Intrathecal drug delivery systems: A case series advancing surgical, clinical, and technological safety with broader implications for invasive neuromodulation therapies.

Bi Mo, Sandra Sacks, Jerry Markar

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medical case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bi MoDivision of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6439-3687
Sandra SacksDivision of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jerry MarkarDivision of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) represent an advanced modality of invasive pharmacological neuromodulation, providing efficacious treatment for terminal malignant pain as well as select chronic noncancer pain conditions. Although intrathecal drug delivery systems offer the potential for reduced systemic adverse effects compared to conventional routes, they are not without significant complications, including infections, device dysfunction, and severe neurological injuries. Moreover, the integration of network-based smart-device applications into intrathecal drug delivery system control interfaces introduces a concomitant elevation in risks associated with software errors and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Case 1: a 77-year-old male receiving intrathecal methadone therapy, after the failure of first- and second-line agents, developed a catheter-tip spinal granuloma resulting in irreversible paraplegia secondary to thoracic spinal cord compression. Case 2: a 37-year-old female with a history of longstanding depression experienced a severe surgical site infection attributable to suboptimal surgical techniques during intrathecal drug delivery system implantation. This complication led to septic shock and meningitis, necessitating device removal and prolonged intravenous antibiotic therapy, though she ultimately recovered without permanent neurological deficits. Case 3: a 67-year-old female encountered acute opioid withdrawal and subsequent hospitalization as a consequence of a tablet-based interrogation platform's software error in timekeeping that miscalculated her intrathecal drug delivery system refill date and recovered without enduring neurological sequelae. Invasive neuromodulation therapies, including intrathecal drug delivery systems, present multifaceted challenges that necessitate rigorous patient and therapeutic agent selection, meticulous risk factor mitigation, continuous neuromonitoring, and prompt detection of subtle neurological changes indicative of potential complications. This analysis delineates three critical domains: first, clinical vigilance and enhanced monitoring protocols are essential for the early identification of severe complications, such as granuloma formation; second, an educational paradigm shift, standardized, comprehensive surgical training in fellowship programs is required to ensure technical proficiency, optimal postoperative management, and an in-depth understanding of psychosocial factors; and third, technological leadership, the adoption of app-based management systems on consumer platforms introduces vulnerabilities including software malfunctions and cybersecurity threats, thereby necessitating that physicians advocate for stringent safety standards and robust regulatory oversight. Collectively, these strategies are indispensable for enhancing the safety and efficacy of invasive neuromodulation therapies and transforming the landscape of chronic pain management.

Indexed as

cybersecurityintrathecal drug delivery systemsneurological complicationsneuromodulationsurgical competence

Identifiers

PMID40308379
PMCPMC12041720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.