ReviewStereotactic and functional neurosurgery2025
Cordotomy for Intractable Cancer Pain: A Historical and Technical Narrative Review with Modern Perspectives.
Review 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of percutaneous cervical cordotomy in intractable cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Early postoperative cervical spinal cord signal changes following percutaneous cordotomy: a clinically correlated imaging pattern.The Korean journal of pain · 2026Article
- Percutaneous Cervical Cordotomy for Refractory Cancer Pain With General Anesthesia and Neuromonitoring: A Case Report.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Background: Percutaneous cervical cordotomy (PCC) is a lesioning procedure that targets the anterolateral quadrant of the spinal cord to interrupt spinothalamic pain pathways. It provides rapid and durable analgesia for patients with unilateral, medically refractory cancer pain below the C5 dermatome. Although its utilization has declined with the expansion of pharmacological and neuromodulatory therapies, PCC remains a critical palliative intervention for patients in whom opioid therapy is ineffective or intolerable. Summary: This narrative review delineates the neuroanatomical underpinnings, technical evolution, and contemporary clinical outcomes associated with PCC. The procedure is typically performed at the C1-2 level under CT guidance, allowing precise lesion placement verified through impedance monitoring and intraoperative electrophysiological testing. Recent adaptations - including the use of deep sedation combined with neurophysiological mapping - have broadened the eligible patient population to include individuals unable to undergo awake procedures. Across modern clinical series, PCC provides immediate and substantial analgesia in over 90% of patients, frequently enabling significant reductions in opioid consumption and improvements in quality of life. Adverse events are uncommon and typically transient, though hemiparesis, respiratory dysfunction, and mirror pain remain recognized risks. Median post-procedural survival is generally short, reflecting delayed referral patterns and underscoring the need for earlier multidisciplinary consideration. Key Messages: PCC achieves rapid, durable, and substantial analgesia in appropriately selected patients with unilateral, treatment-refractory cancer pain. Advances in imaging and neurophysiological guidance have enhanced procedural accuracy and safety. Earlier integration into palliative care pathways may optimize patient outcomes and quality of life. </p>.
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.