Spinal Cord Stimulation as an Alternative to Opioid for Axial Neck and Back Pain: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Spinal cord stimulation is emerging as a minimally invasive technique for treatment of persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Methods We describe a case series of 25 individuals with PSPS who underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulator device between 2017 and 2021. Results There was a significant reduction in mean visual analog scale pain scores in the immediate postoperative phase, (8.61 vs. 2.3, p < 0.001). There were twelve patients who consumed pre-operative opioid, and 75% showed reduction of use with a significantly lower average daily dose (66.8 vs. 26.9 meq/D, p < 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index during postoperative follow-up visits (p < 0.001). There were no major perioperative or long-term complications from the procedure in follow-up. Conclusion The analysis of this cohort suggests successful long-term treatment of a diverse set of patients with PSPS who underwent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and had meaningful improvement in quality of life and reduction in opioid consumption.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".