ArticleNeurology2026
Safety of Intracranial Neuromodulation in Drug-Resistant Pediatric and Adult Epilepsy.
Article in Neurology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIntracranial neuromodulation is an established therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) in adults. Improving seizure outcomes and expanding its application to pediatric patients remain priorities. Off-label use of 2-lead and 4-lead devices targeting multiple network nodes, combined with varied stimulation parameters, has emerged in pursuit of better outcomes. Although early findings are promising, the safety of these approaches remains underexplored. This study evaluates adverse event (AE) rates associated with different intracranial neuromodulation devices from a single center.
methodsThis retrospective study from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) included patients with DRE who underwent intracranial neuromodulation between August 2004 and December 2024. Demographic data, epilepsy characteristics, treatment indications, procedural details, and AEs were extracted from medical records. AEs are undesirable events associated with implantation and use of the device, regardless of causation. Serious AEs were life threatening or resulted in hospitalization, persistent or significant disability, or death. Patients were classified as children (<13 years), adolescents (13-18 years), or adults (≥19 years).
resultsA total of 217 patients (108 male patients, 109 female patients; 14 children, 43 adolescents, 160 adults) were analyzed. Devices included 2-lead deep brain stimulation (DBS) (111 patients), 4-lead DBS (51 patients), and responsive neurostimulation (55 patients). Device-related AEs included stimulation-related paresthesia (7.8%), infections (4.1%), asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (3.7%), bowstring effect (extension wire tethering that limits neck mobility) (3.2%), operation-related focal weakness (2.3%), wound dehiscence (1.8%), device migration (1.8%), lead malposition (1.4%), lead fracture (1.4%), lead migration (0.5%), extensor wire fracture (0.5%), extrusion (0.5%), and symptomatic ICH (0.5%). While no significant difference in overall AE rates was found between sexes, device explantation was significantly higher in female patients than in male patients (11.9% [13/109] vs 1.9% [2/108], DISCUSSION: Intracranial neuromodulation demonstrated an acceptable safety profile across sexes and age groups. However, children and patients with 4-lead DBS systems were at increased risk of the bowstring effect. These findings highlight the need for tailored device design and surgical strategies to optimize safety, particularly in pediatric populations.
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.