ArticlePain and therapy2021
Efficacy and Safety of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Using Cervical and Thoracic Leads: A Single-Center Retrospective Experience.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06359561 (Assessment of Effectiveness and Stimulation Coverage of Closed-loop Spinal Cord), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Assessment of Effectiveness and Stimulation Coverage of Closed-loop Spinal Cord
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Neck Surgery Syndrome.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms for the Treatment of Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Correlation between spinal cord stimulation analgesia and cortical dynamics in pain management.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) with lower thoracic leads has been studied extensively. However, the evidence base for cervical SCS is less well developed, and reports of multiarea SCS lead placement are uncommon. Therefore, this single-center retrospective study evaluated outcomes from 10-kHz SCS with cervical or combined cervical and thoracic lead placement.
methodAll patients that underwent a 10-kHz SCS trial with either cervical or combined cervical and thoracic lead placement between 2015 and 2020 were included in our study. We reviewed patient's charts for demographic information, lead placement, and pain scores up to 48 months after implantation.
resultsOf the 105 patients that underwent a 10-kHz SCS trial during the review period, 92 (88%) had back/neck or extremity pain that responded to therapy (≥ 50% pain relief from baseline) and received a permanent system. Sixty-two of these patients (67%) were implanted with combined cervical and thoracic leads, while 30 (33%) received cervical-only leads. Pain relief in both regions exceeded 60% at most visits throughout the 48-month study period. Throughout follow-up, the responder rate in both pain areas was consistently ≥ 70%. No unexpected adverse events occurred.
conclusionThe 10-kHz SCS provided effective and durable pain relief with either cervical or combined cervical and thoracic leads. The efficacy and safety profile of both applications appears to be comparable to lower thoracic SCS. Our results suggest that 10-kHz SCS is a useful paresthesia-free therapeutic option for chronic neuropathic pain originating in the cervical area, as well as more complex multiarea pain presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.