A Prospective, Multi‐Center, Clinical Trial of a 10‐kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation System in the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a debilitating condition that often leads to disability and does not respond to conventional treatments. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of paresthesia-independent 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in subjects with CPP. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm pilot study enrolled subjects with clinical diagnoses of CPP and mean pain scores of ≥ 5.0 cm on a 10-cm VAS. Subjects underwent trial stimulations with 10-kHz SCS, and those who had successful trial stimulations (≥40% pain relief) received permanently implanted devices and were followed for 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 21 subjects who underwent the 10-kHz SCS trial, 17 were successful and 14 subjects received permanent implants. No neurological deficits were observed in any subjects and all adverse events (AEs) were resolved without sequelae during the study period. Over 12 months, mean VAS scores decreased by 72% from baseline, and 10 of 13 subjects (77%) were responders (≥50% pain relief). Pain remission (VAS score ≤ 3.0 cm) was reported by 8 of 13 subjects (62%), and mean pain scores on the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 decreased as well. Pain Disability Index scores declined by 29 points, and 85% of the subjects reported satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Paresthesia-independent stimulation with 10-kHz SCS reduced pelvic pain in subjects with CPP and was not associated with any unexpected AEs. While larger, controlled studies are needed, results of this study suggest that this therapeutic modality could potentially treat patients with CPP while improving their quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".