2015
DOI: 10.1111/ner.12217
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lack of Body Positional Effects on Paresthesias When Stimulating the Dorsal Root Ganglion (DRG) in the Treatment of Chronic Pain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
1
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There were no confirmed lead migrations in this study. This low rate of lead migration is similar to other reports on DRG stimulation . This lack of migration is in stark contrast to DCS.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…There were no confirmed lead migrations in this study. This low rate of lead migration is similar to other reports on DRG stimulation . This lack of migration is in stark contrast to DCS.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In follow‐up postmarket studies, stability of paresthesia and pain relief has been demonstrated over 15 months . Combined with the lack of positional effects (that is, differences in paresthesia intensity when standing vs. lying down) , DRG‐SCS may provide some solutions for common complaints with SCS therapy. This may be due to the recruitment of the distally extending sensory neurons, which may have different neurophysiological properties than the complex nociceptive and nonnociceptive sensory processing mechanisms of SCS .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Paresthesia intensity was rated by subjects using a previously published paresthesia intensity rating scale. 16 Subjects rated the intensity of their perception of paresthesia, while upright and supine, on an 11-point numeric rating scale from 0 representing “No feeling” to 10 “Very intense.” Perceived paresthesia intensity difference between supine and upright positions was calculated and averaged across each group This end point was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%