Spinal Cord Stimulation versus Repeated Lumbosacral Spine Surgery for Chronic Pain: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

By R. North, D. Kidd, Farrokh R. Farrokhi, S. Piantadosi. Neurosurgery, 2005

867 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (2007, methodology): “Inferential t b that SCS was more effective than re-operation as a treatment for persistent, primarily radicular, pain after lumbosacral spine surgery (North et al., 2005).”
Interventional Therapies, Surgery, and Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation for Low Back Pain: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline From the American Pain Society (2009, background): “However, over one-quarter of patients experience complications following spinal cord stimulator placement, including electrode migration, infection or wound breakdown, generator pocketrelated complications, and lead problems.(128,129) No trial has compared spinal cord stimulation to intensive interd”
EFNS guidelines on neurostimulation therapy for neuropathic pain (2007, background): “Concerning FBSS there are two class-II RCTs, the first showing that SCS is more effective than reoperation [26] and the second that its addition is more effective than conventional medical care alone [27,28].”
Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain. (2007, background): “Two reports by Kemlar et al (1257,125 ) and two studies by North et al (1255,1259)”