Is the pain at your spinal cord stimulator site something that should have been fixed — or prevented?
You had a spinal cord stimulator implanted to reduce pain. Now the implant site itself is the source of it. That is not a small irony — it is a clinical outcome that demands explanation. Persistent generator pocket pain after a Precision Spectra implant can have identifiable causes. Some of those causes are preventable. Some of them point directly to how the surgery was performed, or how your concerns were handled afterwards.
This article will help you understand what surgeons are required to do when implanting and managing a spinal cord stimulator, where things go wrong, and whether your experience may reflect a failure in your care.
What should have happened
Implanting a Precision Spectra spinal cord stimulator involves creating a subcutaneous pocket — usually in the abdomen, flank, or buttock — to house the pulse generator. Surgeons are required to create a pocket of appropriate depth and size, position the device to minimise mechanical stress on surrounding tissue, and close the wound in a way that reduces the risk of erosion, migration, and chronic irritation. After implantation, clinicians are required to take reports of persistent pain seriously, investigate the cause, and act on what they find.
A patient reports ongoing, worsening pain at the generator site six weeks after implantation. The treating clinician attributes it to normal post-operative discomfort and does not examine the pocket or order imaging. Three months later, imaging reveals the device has migrated and is pressing against a nerve. Revision surgery follows. The original complaint, documented in the notes, went unaddressed for months.
The pocket was created too shallow
The generator pocket must sit at a depth that protects the device from mechanical pressure — from clothing, movement, and the patient’s own body weight when seated or lying down. When a surgeon creates the pocket too superficially, the device sits close to the skin surface. Constant pressure causes pain, skin thinning, and — in serious cases — erosion through the skin.
This is a technical failure. The surgeon controls pocket depth. When the pocket is too shallow and the patient reports pain from the outset, the cause is identifiable. Clinicians who dismiss that pain without investigating pocket depth have failed to meet a basic standard of post-operative care.
The device was positioned in a way that caused ongoing mechanical irritation
Device orientation and anchoring matter. A generator placed with its edges pressing against fascial layers, or positioned where normal body movement creates repeated mechanical stress, will cause chronic pain. Surgeons are required to consider the patient’s body habitus, activity level, and likely pressure points before deciding where and how to position the device.
When a patient reports pain that worsens with specific movements or positions — and that pattern is consistent with mechanical irritation from the device — the treating team is required to investigate. Repeated dismissal of that pattern, without imaging or clinical review of the pocket, is a failure to act on available information.
Clinicians did not respond adequately to reported pain
Post-implantation pain that persists beyond the expected recovery window is a clinical signal. It requires assessment — not reassurance. Surgeons and pain specialists managing Precision Spectra patients are required to examine the pocket, consider imaging, and evaluate whether the device position, depth, or anchoring is contributing to the patient’s symptoms.
When a clinician repeatedly records a patient’s pain complaint and takes no investigative action, that record becomes significant. The notes show the complaint was made. They also show nothing was done. That gap — between what the patient reported and what the clinician did — is where negligence often sits.
- You reported pain at the generator site early in your recovery and your clinician told you it was normal, without examining the pocket or ordering imaging.
- The pain is worse when you sit, lie on that side, or wear clothing that presses on the device — and no one has investigated whether the device position is the cause.
- You have had revision surgery to reposition or replace the generator, and no one explained why the original placement caused problems.
- You were not told before surgery that chronic pocket pain, device migration, or skin erosion were possible outcomes — and you would have made a different decision had you known.
- You raised the pain repeatedly over months or years, and the records show those complaints but no clinical response beyond pain medication.
- This happened some time ago and you did not think of it as a legal matter until recently — perhaps because you were told the pain was just part of living with a spinal cord stimulator.
The records — not anyone’s memory of what was said in a consultation — will answer most of these questions. Many people wait years before looking into this, often because they were told persistent pain was expected. The time limit for making a claim varies by state and territory in Australia, and it matters.
What happens next
A legal review of a case like this starts with the clinical records — the operative notes, the post-operative consultation entries, any imaging reports, and the correspondence between treating clinicians. Those documents show what the surgeon did, what the patient reported, and what the clinical team did in response. That is where the answer usually lives.
The goal is an honest assessment of whether the care you received fell below the standard required — not to assign blame for its own sake, but to give you a clear answer about whether what happened to you was avoidable.
Not sure whether your implant site pain 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 legal background allows her to read medical records — and then apply the law to what she finds. For spinal cord stimulator cases, that perspective matters: the failures that cause chronic pocket pain often sit in the gap between what the operative notes record and what the patient was told about their symptoms.
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 Technical Manual, Boston Scientific, Marlborough MA.
- Eldabe S, Buchser E, Duarte RV, ‘Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Practice and Recommendations from the British and Irish Pain Society’ (2016) 17(7) Pain Medicine 1218–1230.
- Hayek SM, Veizi E, Hanes M, ‘Treatment-Limiting Complications of Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulator Implants: A Review of Eight Years of Experience from an Academic Center Database’ (2015) 18(5) Neuromodulation 603–608.
- Rogers ML, Trentman TL, Dodick DW, Zimmerman RS, ‘Spinal Cord Stimulator Pocket Revision: Techniques and Outcomes’ (2006) 9(3) Neuromodulation 206–212.
- Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Australian Safety and Quality Framework for Health Care, ACSQHC, Sydney, 2010.
- 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); Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT); Personal Injuries (Liabilities and Damages) Act 2003 (NT).
- Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 (High Court of Australia) — established that a medical practitioner must warn a patient of any material risk inherent in a proposed treatment.
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.