Multidevice spinal cord stimulation trials: shared decision making in the era of multiple neuromodulation paradigms.

IF 1.4 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain management Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1080/17581869.2024.2401767
Soun Sheen, John Markman, Michael Sohn, Anuj Bhatia, Ram Haddas, Paul Geha, Jennifer Gewandter
{"title":"Multidevice spinal cord stimulation trials: shared decision making in the era of multiple neuromodulation paradigms.","authors":"Soun Sheen, John Markman, Michael Sohn, Anuj Bhatia, Ram Haddas, Paul Geha, Jennifer Gewandter","doi":"10.1080/17581869.2024.2401767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> There is a lack of evidence-based standards for matching spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paradigm to individual patients. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of a new alternative trial strategy, a sequential multidevice trial.<b>Materials & methods:</b> A retrospective analysis was performed on 116 patients who underwent SCS trials, single device or sequential multidevice (tonic and high-frequency), for chronic low back pain to assess feasibility and compare trial-to-implantation rate and explantation rate.<b>Results:</b> Multidevice SCS trials are feasible and safe. There was no statistically significant difference in the trial-to-implantation and explantation rates between the two groups.<b>Conclusion:</b> Multidevice SCS trial, prioritizing patient preference, may serve as an alternative trial strategy to improve long-term success of SCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":20000,"journal":{"name":"Pain management","volume":" ","pages":"413-420"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487958/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17581869.2024.2401767","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: There is a lack of evidence-based standards for matching spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paradigm to individual patients. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of a new alternative trial strategy, a sequential multidevice trial.Materials & methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 116 patients who underwent SCS trials, single device or sequential multidevice (tonic and high-frequency), for chronic low back pain to assess feasibility and compare trial-to-implantation rate and explantation rate.Results: Multidevice SCS trials are feasible and safe. There was no statistically significant difference in the trial-to-implantation and explantation rates between the two groups.Conclusion: Multidevice SCS trial, prioritizing patient preference, may serve as an alternative trial strategy to improve long-term success of SCS.

多设备脊髓刺激试验:多种神经调节范例时代的共同决策。
目的:脊髓刺激(SCS)范例与个体患者的匹配缺乏循证标准。我们旨在确定一种新的替代试验策略--多装置顺序试验--的可行性和安全性:我们对116名因慢性腰背痛接受SCS试验的患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者接受了单装置或顺序多装置(强直和高频)试验,以评估可行性并比较试验到植入率和切除率:多装置 SCS 试验可行且安全。结果:多器械 SCS 试验是可行和安全的,两组的植入试验率和切除率在统计学上没有明显差异:结论:多装置 SCS 试验优先考虑患者的偏好,可作为提高 SCS 长期成功率的另一种试验策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain management
Pain management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
62
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信