Your Precision Spectra implant is breaking through the skin — was that a failure of care?
This article explains what surgeons and treating clinicians are required to do to prevent and manage erosion — and what the records will show about whether that happened in your case.
What should have happened
Implanting a spinal cord stimulator like the Precision Spectra requires more than placing the device correctly on the day. The implanting surgeon must select an appropriate pocket depth and location, use technique that minimises tissue trauma, and ensure the patient receives clear instructions for the post-operative period. After implantation, the treating team must monitor the implant site and respond promptly when a patient reports pain, swelling, redness, or any change at the site — because those are the early signs that erosion may be developing.
A patient with a Precision Spectra implant notices the skin over the generator site becoming thin, shiny, and tender several months after surgery. She tells her GP at a routine appointment. The GP documents the complaint but does not refer her back to the implanting surgeon or the pain management team. Over the following weeks, the skin breaks down and the device becomes visible. By the time she sees a specialist, she requires surgical removal of the device and faces a prolonged recovery — and the loss of the pain relief the stimulator was providing.
The pocket was placed too shallow or in the wrong location
The generator for a Precision Spectra sits in a surgically created pocket, usually in the flank, abdomen, or buttock. If the implanting surgeon creates that pocket too close to the skin surface, the device exerts pressure on the overlying tissue. Over time — sometimes weeks, sometimes months — that pressure causes the skin to thin and break down.
Correct pocket depth is not a matter of judgment after the fact. Surgical guidelines specify the depth required to protect the overlying skin. A surgeon who places the device too shallow has departed from that standard. The consequence is erosion that the patient then has to manage — often through further surgery.
Early warning signs were dismissed or not acted on
Erosion rarely happens without warning. Patients typically notice changes at the implant site — skin that looks different, feels tight, or becomes painful — before the device breaks through. When a patient reports those changes, the treating clinician must take them seriously and act quickly.
A clinician who tells a patient that redness or tenderness at the implant site is normal, or who delays referral back to the implanting team, allows a manageable problem to become a surgical emergency. The records will show when the patient first raised concerns — and what the clinician did in response.
Infection was not identified or treated in time
Infection is a significant driver of skin erosion around implanted devices. Bacteria introduced at the time of surgery, or later through the skin, can cause the tissue around the device to break down. The implanting surgeon and the post-operative team carry a responsibility to monitor for signs of infection — redness, warmth, discharge, fever — and to treat it aggressively when it appears.
A team that misses or underestimates an infection at the implant site, or that prescribes antibiotics without arranging close follow-up, may allow the infection to progress to the point where erosion and device removal become unavoidable. That is a failure of post-operative care — not an unavoidable outcome.
- You reported pain, redness, swelling, or skin changes at the implant site and were told it was normal or nothing to worry about.
- The erosion or exposure developed within months of implantation — suggesting the device was not placed at the correct depth from the outset.
- You had signs of infection — discharge, fever, warmth at the site — that were not treated promptly or thoroughly.
- No one referred you back to the implanting surgeon or a specialist when you first raised concerns about the site.
- You required surgical removal of the device as a result of the erosion, losing the pain relief the stimulator was providing.
- This happened some time ago and you assumed it was just an unfortunate complication — but you have since wondered whether it could have been prevented.
The records — the operative notes, the post-operative clinic entries, and the GP notes — will answer these questions far more reliably than anyone’s memory. Many people wait years before looking into what happened to them. The time limit for making a claim varies by state and territory in Australia, so the timing of when you look into this matters.
What happens next
A legal examination of the records in a case like this involves obtaining the operative notes from the implanting surgeon, the post-operative clinic records, and any GP or emergency department notes from the period when problems developed. A clinician with expertise in implantable devices reviews those records against the applicable standard of care. That review identifies whether the pocket placement, the post-operative monitoring, or the response to early warning signs fell below what was required.
The goal of that review is an honest answer — not a predetermined outcome. If the records show the care was appropriate and the erosion was genuinely unavoidable, that is what the review will find. If the records show something went wrong, you will know what it was and what your options are.
Not sure whether the erosion was avoidable?
Dr Rosemary Listing reviews the records and gives you a straight answer. No obligation, no pressure — just clarity.
For more information about how medical negligence claims work in Australia, visit Reframe Legal — Medical Negligence.
Dr Rosemary Listing is a lawyer specialising in medical negligence claims, with a PhD in medical negligence. She practises through Peter Evans & Associates, servicing clients across Australia.
Her background allows her to read operative notes and post-operative records — and then apply the law to what she finds. For implant erosion cases, that perspective matters: the failures that cause harm often sit in the gap between what the surgical notes record and what the patient was told at follow-up appointments.
Dr Listing’s work is focused on giving people an honest answer about whether what happened to them was avoidable. Many people wait a long time before looking into it. She understands why and applies a sensitive and caring approach to all her clients’ cases.
- Boston Scientific Corporation, Precision Spectra Spinal Cord Stimulator System — Physician’s Manual, including implant technique guidelines for pocket depth and placement.
- Mekhail NA et al., ‘Complications of spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation in patients with pain and neurological disease’ (2011) 14(4) Neuromodulation 361–367.
- Eldabe S et al., ‘Complications of spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation practice’ (2016) 19(1) Neuromodulation 33–43.
- Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia), Implantable Medical Devices — Post-Market Surveillance Requirements.
- Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld); Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic); Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA); Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA); Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) — limitation periods and standard of care provisions.
- Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 — the duty of a medical practitioner to warn of material risks and to exercise reasonable care in treatment.
- Dobler v Halverson [2007] NSWCA 335 — causation in medical negligence where failure to act on early warning signs contributed to harm.
This article contains general legal information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer–client relationship. The law applicable to medical negligence claims varies by state and territory in Australia. Each person’s circumstances differ. Time limits apply to legal claims in Australia and vary by jurisdiction. Seek independent legal advice about your specific situation.