Complications of chronic vagus nerve stimulation for epilepsy in children

2003 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 500-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Smyth ◽  
R. Shane Tubbs ◽  
E. Martina Bebin ◽  
Paul A. Grabb ◽  
Jeffrey P. Blount
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Deep Infection ◽  
Shoulder Abduction ◽  
Device Removal ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Hardware Failure ◽  
Fine Print

Object. The aim of this study was to define better the incidence of surgical complications and untoward side effects of chronic vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) in a population of children with medically refractory epilepsy. Methods. The authors retrospectively reviewed the cases of 74 consecutive patients (41 male and 33 female) 18 years of age or younger (mean age 8.8 years, range 11 months–18 years) who had undergone implantation of a vagal stimulator between 1998 and 2001 with a minimum follow up of 1 year (mean 2.2 years). Of the 74 patients treated, seven (9.4%) had a complication ultimately resulting in removal of the stimulator. The rate of deep infections necessitating device removal was 3.5% (three of 74 patients who had undergone 85 implantation and/or revision procedures). An additional three superficial infections occurred in patients in whom the stimulators were not removed: one was treated with superficial operative debridement and antibiotic agents and the other two with oral antibiotics only. Another four stimulators (5.4%) were removed because of the absence of clinical benefit and device intolerance. Two devices were revised because of lead fracture (2.7%). Among the cohort, 11 battery changes have been performed thus far, although none less than 33 months after initial implantation. Several patients experienced stimulation-induced symptoms (hoarseness, cough, drooling, outbursts of laughter, shoulder abduction, dysphagia, or urinary retention) that did not require device removal. Ipsilateral vocal cord paralysis was identified in one patient. One patient died of aspiration pneumonia more than 30 days after device implantation. Conclusions. Vagus nerve stimulation remains a viable option for improving seizure control in difficult to treat pediatric patients with epilepsy. Surgical complications such as hardware failure (2.7%) or deep infection (3.5%) occurred, resulting in device removal or revision. Occasional stimulation-induced symptoms such as hoarseness, dysphagia, or torticollis may be expected (5.4%).

Self-inflicted vocal cord paralysis in two patients with vagus nerve stimulators

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 949-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
James G. Kalkanis ◽  
Priya Krishna ◽  
Jose A. Espinosa ◽  
Dean K. Naritoku
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Vocal Cord ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pulse Generator ◽  
Vocal Cord Paralysis ◽  
Cardiac Pacemakers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Disabled Patients

✓ Vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of epilepsy is considered safe; reports of severe complications are rare. The authors report on two developmentally disabled patients who experienced vocal cord paralysis weeks after placement of a vagus nerve stimulator. In both cases, traction injury to the vagus nerve resulting in vocal cord paralysis was caused by rotation of the pulse generator at the subclavicular pocket by the patient. Traumatic vagus nerve injury caused by patients tampering with their device has never been reported and may be analogous to a similar phenomenon reported for cardiac pacemakers in the literature. As the use of vagus nerve stimulation becomes widespread it is important to consider the potential for this adverse event.

Vagus nerve stimulation after lead revision

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. E11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Dlouhy ◽  
Steven V. Viljoen ◽  
David K. Kung ◽  
Timothy W. Vogel ◽  
Mark A. Granner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Average Duration ◽  
Common Symptom ◽  
Lead Failure ◽  
Hardware Failure ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
Initial Implantation

Object Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) has demonstrated benefit in patients with medically intractable partial epilepsy. As in other therapies with mechanical devices, hardware failure occurs, most notably within the VNS lead, requiring replacement. However, the spiral-designed lead electrodes wrapped around the vagus nerve are often encased in dense scar tissue hampering dissection and removal. The objective in this study was to characterize VNS lead failure and lead revision surgery and to examine VNS efficacy after placement of a new electrode on the previously used segment of vagus nerve. Methods The authors reviewed all VNS lead revisions performed between October 2001 and August 2011 at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Twenty-four patients underwent 25 lead revisions. In all cases, the helical electrodes were removed, and a new lead was placed on the previously used segment of vagus nerve. All inpatient and outpatient records of the 25 lead revisions were retrospectively reviewed. Results Four cases were second lead revisions, and 21 cases were first lead revisions. The average time to any revision was 5 years (range 1.8–11.1 years), with essentially no difference between a first and second lead revision. The most common reason for a revision was intrinsic lead failure resulting in high impedance (64%), and the most common symptom was increased seizure frequency (72%). The average duration of surgery for the initial implantation in the 15 patients whose VNS system was initially implanted at the authors' institution was much shorter (94 minutes) than the average duration of lead revision surgery (173 minutes). However, there was a significant trend toward shorter surgical times as more revision surgeries were performed. Sixteen of the 25 cases of lead revision were followed up for more than 3 months. In 15 of these 16 cases, the revision was as effective as the previous VNS lead. In most of these cases, both the severity and frequency of seizures were decreased to levels similar to those following the previous implantation procedure. Only 1 complication occurred, and there were no postoperative infections. Conclusions Lead revision surgery involving the placement of a new electrode at the previously used segment of vagus nerve is effective at decreasing the seizure burden to an extent similar to that obtained following the initial VNS implantation. Even with multiple lead revisions, patients can obtain VNS efficacy similar to that following the initial lead implantation. There is a learning curve with revision surgery, and overall the duration of surgery is longer than for the initial implantation. Note, however, that complications and infection are rare.

Hardware failure in vagus nerve stimulation therapy

2008 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Rijkers ◽  
M. W. Berfelo ◽  
E. M. J. Cornips ◽  
H. J. M. Majoie
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Hardware Failure

Effect of Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation in Dysphagia After Lateral Medullary Infarction: A Case Report

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1381-1387
Author(s):  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Jie Wang ◽  
Dongyu Wu ◽  
Dahua Zhang ◽  
Weiqun Song
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Tube Feeding ◽  
Nasogastric Feeding ◽  
Lateral Medullary Infarction ◽  
Severe Dysphagia ◽  
Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Medullary Infarction

Purpose Severe dysphagia with weak pharyngeal peristalsis after dorsal lateral medullary infarction (LMI) requires long-term tube feeding. However, no study is currently available on therapeutic effectiveness in severe dysphagia caused by nuclear damage of vagus nerve after dorsal LMI. The purpose of the present investigation was to explore the potential of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) to improve severe dysphagia with weak pharyngeal peristalsis after dorsal LMI. Method We assessed the efficacy of 6-week tVNS in a 28-year-old woman presented with persisting severe dysphagia after dorsal LMI who had been on nasogastric feeding for 6 months. tVNS was applied for 20 min twice a day, 5 days a week, for 6 weeks. The outcome measures included saliva spitted, Swallow Function Scoring System, Functional Oral Intake Scale, Clinical Assessment of Dysphagia With Wallenberg Syndrome, Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale, and upper esophagus X-ray examination. Results After tVNS, the patient was advanced to a full oral diet without head rotation or spitting. No saliva residue was found in the valleculae and pyriform sinuses. Contrast medium freely passed through the upper esophageal sphincter. Conclusion Our findings suggest that tVNS might provide a useful means for recovery of severe dysphagia with weak pharyngeal peristalsis after dorsal LMI. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9755438

Vagus nerve stimulation in rheumatoid arthritis – Authors' reply

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e14-e15
Author(s):  
Mark C Genovese ◽  
Yaakov A Levine ◽  
David Chernoff
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation

Cognition-enhancing effect of vagus nerve stimulation on refractory epilepsy secondary to lissencephaly: A case report.

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Marmo da Costa e Souza ◽  
Felipe Ricardo Pereira Vasconcelos De Arruda ◽  
Jose Anderson Galdino Santos ◽  
Jamerson De Carvalho Andrade ◽  
Suellen Mary Marinho Dos Santos Andrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Refractory Epilepsy ◽  
Enhancing Effect

Implanted vagus nerve stimulation in 126 patients: surgical technique and complications

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (7) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Vagus Nerve ◽  
Vocal Cord ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Vagus Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pulse Generator ◽  
Operative Procedure ◽  
Intractable Epilepsy ◽  
Vagal Nerve ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Nerve Stimulator

Introduction: Vagus nerve stimulation is a palliative treatment for patients with refractory epilepsy to reduce the frequency and intensity of seizures. A bipolar helical electrode is placed around the left vagus nerve at the cervical level and is connected to the pulse generator placed in a subcutaneous pocket, most commonly in the subclavian region. Methods: Between March 1998 and October 2019, we performed 196 procedures related to the vagal nerve stimulation at the Neurosurgery Department in Motol University Hospital. Of these, 126 patients were vagal nerve stimulator implantation surgeries for intractable epilepsy. The cases included 69 female and 57 male patients with mean age at the time of the implantation surgery 22±12.4 years (range 2.1−58.4 years). Results: Nine patients (7.1%) were afflicted by complications related to implantation. Surgical complications included postoperative infection in 1.6%, VNS-associated arrhythmias in 1.6%, jugular vein bleeding in 0.8% and vocal cord paresis in 2.4%. One patient with vocal cord palsy also suffered from severe dysphagia. One patient (0.8%) did not tolerate extra stimulation with magnet due to a prolonged spasm in his throat. The extra added benefit of vagus stimulation in one patient was a significant reduction of previously regular severe headaches. Conclusion: Vagus nerve stimulation is an appropriate treatment for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who are not candidates for focal resective surgery. Implantation of the vagus nerve stimulator is a relatively safe operative procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document