ArticleNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2025
Clinical experience implanting a miniature externally powered vagus nerve stimulator.
Article in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 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.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is widely used to treat various neurological and psychiatric conditions, including epilepsy and treatment-resistant depression, as well as to enhance motor rehabilitation following stroke. Conventional VNS devices have demonstrated reliability over decades of use, though recent advancements in technology offer new opportunities to further enhance the device. Many emerging indications require only intermittent stimulation, allowing for the development of a miniature externally powered implantable stimulator (MEPS) that is approximately 50 times smaller than conventional devices, is implanted with a single incision, has no battery or leads, and enables paired stimulation. Our observations compiled from three clinical trials with the MEPS device tested the hypotheses that removing the implanted battery and reducing device size would (1) shorten the surgical procedure and (2) maintain or improve safety outcomes. Data were collected from individuals with stroke, spinal cord injury, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Operative time was significantly reduced, averaging 38 ± 1 min compared to 76 ± 3 min for conventional VNS, with no significant intraoperative complications and no revision surgeries. The MEPS device successfully delivered 481,995 stimulations during 2205 h of therapy. One participant underwent an MRI outside the study, indicating compatibility with standard imaging protocols. Device-related adverse events occurred at a low rate; all were mild and resolved before study end. Overall, the MEPS device demonstrated a favorable safety and performance profile in a select population, with fewer occurrences of certain adverse events, extending the strong safety record of conventional VNS systems.
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.