ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Spinal Cord Stimulators' Displacement: Systematic Review and Single-Institution Case Series with Anchoring Technique.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established neuromodulation therapy for chronic pain, but lead displacement remains a frequent hardware complication with important implications for long-term efficacy. This systematic review quantifies electrode displacement rates worldwide and evaluates whether a spine-anchoring technique is associated with reduced displacement via a single-institution case series. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central (1967-February 2024) to identify SCS studies reporting lead displacement. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42024536758). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools, and the GRADE approach. In parallel, a single-institution retrospective case series (2017-2024) included 128 chronic pain patients treated with SCS using an open surgical laminar anchoring technique with mini-plate and screw fixation. Results: The review included 117 articles (20,427 participants). Trial lead displacement occurred in 7.33% of patients (113/1,542), and permanent lead displacement in 6.64% (1,309/19,677). Studies judged at low risk of bias reported a permanent displacement rate of 2.1% versus 7.1% in high-risk studies. In the institutional case series, all 128 patients underwent a 7-10-day trial, and 125 proceeded to permanent implantation. Trial displacement was 0% (0/128), and permanent displacement was 2.4% (3/125). All three displaced leads showed cranio‑caudal migration and ultimately required surgical revision after unsuccessful reprogramming; all revisions were successful, with no recurrent displacement. Conclusion: Heterogeneity in study design and reporting limits direct comparison of displacement rates across the literature, but methodological quality clearly influences reported outcomes. The open laminar anchoring technique used at our institution was associated with a 2.4% permanent displacement rate, lower than many historical estimates and comparable to rates in lower-risk studies, suggesting that robust anchoring strategies may reduce clinically important lead displacement in selected chronic pain 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.