↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Detailed analysis of allergic cutaneous reactions to spinal cord stimulator devices

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Detailed analysis of allergic cutaneous reactions to spinal cord stimulator devices
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s44676
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zeshan Ahmed Chaudhry, Umer Najib, Zahid H Bajwa, W Carl Jacobs, Javed Sheikh, Thomas T Simopoulos

Abstract

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices to treat chronic, refractory neuropathic pain continues to expand in application. While device-related complications have been well described, inflammatory reactions to the components of these devices remain underreported. In contrast, hypersensitivity reactions associated with other implanted therapies, such as endovascular and cardiac rhythm devices, have been detailed. The purpose of this case series is to describe the clinical presentation and course of inflammatory reactions as well as the histology of these reactions. All patients required removal of the entire device after developing inflammatory reactions over a time course of 1-3 months. Two patients developed a foreign body reaction in the lead insertion wound as well as at the implantable pulse generator site, with histology positive for giant cells. One patient developed an inflammatory dermatitis on the flank and abdomen that resolved with topical hydrocortisone. "In vivo" testing with a lead extension fragment placed in the buttock resulted in a negative reaction followed by successful reimplantation of an SCS device. Inflammatory reactions to SCS devices can manifest as contact dermatitis, granuloma formation, or foreign body reactions with giant cell formation. Tissue diagnosis is essential, and is helpful to differentiate an inflammatory reaction from infection. The role of skin patch testing for 96 hours may not be suited to detect inflammatory giant cell reactions that manifest several weeks post implantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,572
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,283
of 210,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.