Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;163(5):1365-1368.
doi: 10.1007/s00701-020-04585-2. Epub 2020 Sep 24.

High lead impedances requiring revision during vagal nerve stimulator generator replacement

Pouya Entezami  1 , John W German  2 , Matthew A Adamo  2
Affiliations

High lead impedances requiring revision during vagal nerve stimulator generator replacement

Pouya Entezami et al. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 May.

Abstract

Objective: Vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is among the growing options in the treatment of intractable epilepsy. The phenomenon of surprise lead impedance issues found at the time of surgery resulting in unplanned lead revision is a challenge with this type of device. We reviewed our experience with VNS revisions.

Material and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all adult and pediatric patients between January 2009 and September 2018 who underwent surgery for VNS therapy, including revision surgery. Office and operative notes were reviewed to obtain the indications and operative details for VNS placement.

Results: A total of 570 operations were reviewed. The indication was intractable epilepsy in all cases. Primary implantation was performed in 232 patients, while the remaining 338 cases were revision cases of various natures. Surprise high lead impedance was found in 10 (3%) of these cases, resulting in a significantly increased complexity of surgery in those instances.

Conclusion: Lead impedance issues can be caused by disconnection, electrode fracture, hardware failure, or tissue scarring but ultimately require a more extended surgery than may be initially planned. Anticipating the potential for a more extensive operation than a simple generator replacement may prevent perioperative frustrations on both sides.

Keywords: Epilepsy surgery; Hardware failure; Implantation; Stimulation; Vagal nerve stimulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. MacDonald J, Couldwell WT (2004) Revision of vagal nerve stimulator electrodes: technical approach. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 146:567–570; discussion 570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-004-0246-z - DOI
    1. Milby AH, Halpern CH, Baltuch GH (2009) Vagus nerve stimulation in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics 6:228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurt.2009.01.010 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Uthman BM, Wilder BJ, Hammond EJ, Reid SA (1990) Efficacy and safety of vagus nerve stimulation in patients with complex partial seizures. Epilepsia 31(Suppl 2):S44–S50 - DOI
    1. Amar AP, Heck CN, Levy ML, Smith T, DeGiorgio CM, Oviedo S, Apuzzo ML (1998) An institutional experience with cervical vagus nerve trunk stimulation for medically refractory epilepsy: rationale, technique, and outcome. Neurosurgery 43:1265–1276 discussion 1276-1280 - PubMed
    1. Ng WH, Donner E, Go C, Abou-Hamden A, Rutka JT (2010) Revision of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) electrodes: review and report on use of ultra-sharp monopolar tip. Childs Nerv Syst 26:1081–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-010-1121-2 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources