Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36381501›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2022

A Survey on the Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Parameters and Implantable Pulse Generators and on Reasons for Explantation.

Jatinder S Gill, Lynn R Kohan, Jamal Hasoon, Ivan Urits, Omar Viswanath, Viet L Cai, Cyrus Yazdi, Musa M Aner, Alan D Kaye, Thomas T Simopoulos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jatinder S GillBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Lynn R KohanUniversity of Virginia Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Charlottesville, VA.
Jamal HasoonBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Ivan UritsBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Omar ViswanathLouisiana State University Health Shreveport, Department of Anesthesiology, Shreveport, LA.
Viet L CaiBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Cyrus YazdiBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Musa M AnerDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, NH.
Alan D KayeLouisiana State University Health Shreveport, Department of Anesthesiology, Shreveport, LA.
Thomas T SimopoulosBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a vital treatment for chronic intractable pain. In the last few years, the field has undergone dramatic changes in new waveform and frequency introduction as well as device miniaturization. It is important to understand contemporary practice patterns regarding these parameters. Methods: We surveyed the active membership of Spine Intervention Society (SIS), and American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) on their practices regarding various aspects of Spinal Cord Stimulation therapy. Here we report on SCS waveform usage, battery types, and causes of explant in this cohort of providers. Results: There was similar degree of usage of tonic, burst, and 10 kHz usage at 71.5%, 74.1% and 61.7% respectively. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation was used by 32.6% and other modes of stimulation by 13.5%. Rechargeable systems were often or always used by 67.2% whereas 10% never used a rechargeable system. Most common cause of explant was loss of effectiveness, reported by 53.7%. Conclusion: There has been significant adoption of new waveforms in daily practice of spinal cord stimulation therapy and there is robust mixed usage of new waveforms and frequencies. Rechargeable systems are the most commonly used but primary cell is also used in significant numbers. Loss of efficacy remains the most common cause of explant for the majority of practitioners. This survey establishes practice patterns of SCS usage regarding these important variables against which future changes can be gauged.

Indexed as

ExplantationImplantable pulse generatorsNon-rechargeable implantable pulse generatorsRechargeablespinal cord stimulationWaveforms

Identifiers

PMID36381501
PMCPMC9662606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.