2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00406.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rechargeable Internal Neural Stimulators—Is There a Problem with Efficacy?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
25
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
(14 reference statements)
2
25
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The limitations of the study include that this was not a randomized trial and there was no placebo group. However, the InSite study showed SNM efficacy was similar at 6‐months, 1‐year, and 5‐years post‐implant . suggesting there is no significant placebo effect for SNM therapy by 6‐months.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The limitations of the study include that this was not a randomized trial and there was no placebo group. However, the InSite study showed SNM efficacy was similar at 6‐months, 1‐year, and 5‐years post‐implant . suggesting there is no significant placebo effect for SNM therapy by 6‐months.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…While this is the first rechargeable SNM system to conduct a clinical study, the advantages of rechargeable neuromodulation systems are well established with rechargeable spinal cord stimulation and deep brain stimulation systems. These studies have shown high satisfaction with rechargeable neuromodulation systems, including 85‐90% of patients preferring or recommending rechargeable devices …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Depending on the stimulation parameters, the procedure of charging the battery must, with the current technology, be undertaken daily or a few times a week, in comparison to physically exchanging the pulse generator, a replacement made on average every 3 to 5 years (Timmermann et al 2013) Some patients stated that this—sometimes daily—routine acted as a constant reminder of the underlying disease or disorder. As a result, they ended up identifying themselves more with their disease or disorder in comparison to their prior experience with non-rechargeable batteries (Harries et al 2012). Here, an intended improvement for the users created a concern that, from a narrative perspective, could be understood as a problem regarding an experienced loss in authenticity in terms of expressing that they felt less like themselves, and more like someone being impaired, more like a patient than a person.…”
Section: Case: Authenticitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rechargeable IPGs, which have longer predicted battery lives, are an alternative to primary-cell devices. In some cohorts, a majority of the patients were highly satisfied with the rechargeable stimulators (McAuley et al, 2013, Timmermann et al, 2013, Waln and Jimenez-Shahed, 2014); whereas in other cohorts, some patients felt that the burden of recharging was not worth the extra battery life (Harries et al, 2012, Lam and Rosenow, 2010). Whether a patient prefers a primary-cell or rechargeable IPG, improved efficiency can impact the cost and acceptability of DBS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%