ArticleCureus2024
Boosting Confidence: Enhancing Spinal Cord Stimulator Needle and Lead Placement Through Simulation Training.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of three-dimensional printed lumbar spine-model-based training for epidural anesthesia in novice anesthesiology residents.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This pilot study aims to examine the effectiveness of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) simulator training system in improving the confidence of pain fellows in SCS placement. Methodology Five Ukrainian physicians (neurologists, neurosurgeons, and an anesthesiologist) completed a 10-item survey regarding their confidence in various aspects of SCS placement and their opinions on how effective SCS models were for educational purposes. After placing SCS leads using the SCS simulator, the physicians took the same survey again. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if there was a significant difference in total scores pre and post-simulator training. The software PAST (PAleontological STatistics) was used for statistical analysis. Results Overall, five participants had a 38% statistically significant increase in survey scores before and after the intervention (mean: 4.2 vs. 6.2, p = 0.0055). With regards to each item of the survey, participants had a significantly increased confidence in driving leads (2.6 vs. 5.2, p = 0.008) and in overall technical skills for the SCS procedure after the training (2.8 vs. 5.2, p = 0.0188). Although the other eight survey items were not statistically significant (p > 0.05), participants had a 28% increase in confidence when inserting epidural needles, a 20% increase in interpreting simulated X-rays, a 32% increase in navigating challenging anatomical variations, a 12% increase in identifying key anatomical landmarks, a 20% increase in ensuring the correct placement of the lead, or a 53% increase in preparedness for performing an SCS procedure in a real clinical setting. The participant's perspective on how valuable the stimulator training was for enhancing procedural skills increased by 38% and how well the simulator replicated real-life SCS procedure increased by 52%, although both were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusions This pilot study shows that the utilization of simulated neuromodulation training is a viable means of augmenting neuromodulation education by increasing physician's confidence in aspects of the SCS placement procedure. The extent to which simulator training improves procedural skills in a real-life SCS placement needs to be investigated further.
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.