Spinal Cord Stimulation for Nonspecific Limb Pain versus Neuropathic Pain and Spontaneous versus Evoked Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with nonspecific limb pain versus patients with neuropathic pain syndromes and in patients with spontaneous versus evoked pain. METHODS: A retrospective review of 122 patients accepted for treatment with SCS between January 1990 and December 1998 was conducted. All patients first underwent a trial of SCS with a monopolar epidural electrode. Seventy-four patients had a successful trial and underwent permanent implantation of the monopolar electrode used for the trial (19 patients), or a quadripolar electrode (53 patients), or a Resume quadripolar electrode via laminotomy (2 patients). RESULTS: Of the 74 patients, 60.7% underwent implantation of a permanent device and were followed for an average of 3.9 years (range, 0.3-9 yr). Early failure (within 1 yr) occurred in 20.3% of patients, and late failure (after 1 yr) occurred in 33.8% of patients. Overall, 45.9% of patients were still receiving SCS at latest follow-up. Successful SCS (>50% reduction in pain for 1 yr) occurred in 83.3% of patients with nonspecific leg pain, 89.5% of patients with limb pain associated with root injury, and 73.9% of patients with nerve neuropathic pain. SCS was less effective for the control of allodynia or hyperpathia than for spontaneous pain associated with neuropathic pain syndromes. Third-party involvement did not influence outcome. There was a lesser incidence of surgical revisions when quadripolar leads were used than with monopolar electrodes. CONCLUSION: SCS is as effective for treating nonspecific limb pain as it is for treating neuropathic pain, including limb pain associated with root damage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".