Dermabond versus suture fixation for spinal cord stimulator trial lead anchoring: a randomized within-patient controlled trial.

Pain MedNov 1, 2026
Clinical ResearchAnesthesiologyNeurologyOpen access

Robert W Hurley, Janus S Patel, Daniel J Bintrim et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This prospective, randomized within-patient controlled trial compared Dermabond with suture for anchoring bilateral thoracic percutaneous spinal cord stimulator trial leads in 48 adults. Mean absolute radiographic migration was 9.15 ± 14.49 mm with Dermabond and 10.60 ± 17.42 mm with suture; the paired difference was -1.46 mm (95% CI, -6.73 to 3.81; P = .58). Dermabond was not superior, but migration was within the study’s prespecified clinically meaningful threshold for comparable stability. Male sex and prior spine surgery, rather than fixation method, were associated with greater migration.

Key findings

  • Mean migration was 9.15 ± 14.49 mm with Dermabond versus 10.60 ± 17.42 mm with suture; paired difference -1.46 mm (95% CI, -6.73 to 3.81; P = .58).
  • Clinically significant (≥9 mm) migration occurred in 27.1% of Dermabond and 22.9% of suture leads (McNemar P = .77).
  • Male sex (+8.17 mm; P = .036) and prior spine surgery (+7.08 mm; P = .048) predicted greater migration in adjusted analyses; BMI, age, and fixation method did not.

Why it matters

Lead migration can affect the stability of spinal cord stimulator trials. This within-patient comparison suggests that Dermabond may provide stability comparable to suture, while the observed associations with sex and prior spine surgery point to patient-level factors as potentially relevant to migration. The findings help distinguish the performance of an alternative anchoring method from characteristics associated with migration.

What to keep in mind

The trial included 48 adults at a single academic medical center undergoing bilateral thoracic lead placement; the abstract does not report longer-term outcomes beyond the end of the trial.

Source

Published in Pain Med. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Anesthesiology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.