The American Academy Of Pain Medicine

The physicians' voice in pain medicine
  • Foundation
  • Store
  • Career Center
  • Press
  • Join-Renew
Search: Go
Member Login: Login

Enter the AAPM
Members' Community

  • Member Center
  • Patient Center
  • Library
  • Advocacy
  • Practice Management
  • CME
  • Annual Meeting
  • Safe Prescribing Resources
  • PI-CME Portal

Library

Home > Library > For Pain Researchers > 2012 Poster Abstracts
  • Research in the News
  • For Pain Researchers
    • 2013 Poster Abstracts
    • 2012 Poster Abstracts
    • Research Resources
    • Research Presentations
    • Search Clinical Trials (NIH)
    • Register a Clinical Trial (NIH)
    • Medline - US National Library of Medicine
  • Clinical Guidelines and Resources
  • Pain Facts
  • Archives
  • FDA Updates, Recalls and Warnings
  • Presented at the 2012 AAPM Annual Meeting « Back

    141

    Cephalad Lead Migration Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation: Technical Report

    Kai McGreevy, MD, kaimcgreevy@yahoo.com1, Chitra Ramasubbu, MD2, Kayode Williams, MD MBA3, Paul Christo, MD MBA3, (1) Southeast Spine and Rehabilitation, Kingsland, Florida, (2) Johns Hopkins Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, (3) Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

    View Poster

    Introduction: Lead migration (LM) is the most common complication after spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Although multiple reports of caudad LM have been described, cephalad LM has not been reported. Case Report: 60-year-old male with failed back surgery syndrome and lumbosacral radiculopathy underwent SCS lead implantation via a dual lead approach to the top of vertebral body (VB) T9. A standard strain relief loop (SRL) was used for each lead in the paramedian pocket. Postoperative testing revealed 100% paresthesia coverage of the painful areas. For the first 4 days, the patient continued to have excellent coverage; however, by the seventh day, the paresthesias ascended to above the nipple line. At 2-week follow-up, cephalad migration to VB T1 was fluoroscopically confirmed. Results: Successful lead revision was carried out using a single paramedian incision to place extra sutures for lead security and a "figure-of-eight" SRL. Our patient derived significant pain relief (>70% on NRS) and functional improvement from SCS revision, with absence of LM confirmed by surveillance fluoroscopy at 8 weeks. Conclusion: We provide the first case report of significant cephalad LM following SCS lead implantation. This migration can occur despite the use of current standard anchoring techniques. We speculate that in addition to restabilizing the lead-anchor-fascial complex, extra SRLs in the figure-of-eight configuration may provide further protection against uncoiling and subsequent LM. Additional investigation into the mechanism of such LM and lead-securing techniques is warranted. References: 1)Mekhail NA, Mathews M, Nageeb F, Guirguis M, Mekhail MN, Cheng J. Retrospective

    Funding: None

  • Home
  • Member Center
  • Patient Center
  • Library
  • Advocacy
  • Practice Management
  • CME
  • Annual Meeting
  • Contact Us
  • Members' Community
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
Close

Members Only Alert Message

Please login to access AAPM member only information.
Forgot your login information?

Sign Up Today!

Join AAPM today and be part of the primary organization for physicians practicing in the specialty of pain medicine and begin accessing AAPM member benefits. 

Join
Or

Log In

Please log in and you will be redirected to the requested page.

Log In