ArticleInterventional pain medicine2026
Perioperative management of spinal cord stimulators in patients undergoing non-SCS spine surgery: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Interventional pain medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) use has expanded, so perioperative teams increasingly encounter these devices during unrelated spine surgery, where leads, anchors, and the generator may lie within or adjacent to the operative field. Real-world perioperative management of these devices remains uncharacterized. Objective: To characterize documented perioperative SCS management in adults undergoing non-SCS spine surgery and to benchmark prespecified management elements against current practical guidance. Methods: In this single-center retrospective pilot cohort study, we identified adults (≥18 years) with a previously implanted SCS who underwent non-SCS spine surgery between April 1, 2016, and March 22, 2026. Prespecified primary outcomes were alignment with (1) preoperative deactivation or surgery mode and (2) appropriate electrocautery management (bipolar only, or monopolar with the generator contralateral to the return pad). Secondary outcomes were device-related adverse events. Analyses were descriptive, using frequencies and Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Fifty-eight surgical cases were included (mean age 59.2 [SD 13.8] years; 30 [51.7%] male; 42 [72.4%] instrumented fusion; all general anesthesia). Electrocautery was used in every case. Alignment with Element 1 was 13.8% (95% CI, 7.2 to 24.9) and to Element 2 was 43.1% (95% CI, 31.2 to 55.9); only 2 cases (3.4%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 11.7) met both. A perioperative plan was documented in 36.2% (95% CI, 25.1 to 49.1) and reactivation before discharge in 19.0% (95% CI, 10.9 to 30.9). Five cases (8.6%; 95% CI, 3.7 to 18.6) had an SCS-related adverse event, including one generator failure requiring replacement after monopolar cautery with an undocumented return-pad location. Conclusion: Documented perioperative SCS management during non-SCS spine surgery was infrequent and fell short of current guidance in this pilot study, coexisting with a small but non-trivial rate of device-related adverse events. These gaps warrant prospective evaluation of structured protocols and defined pain-service engagement.
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.