The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spinal cord stimulation for chronic, intractable pain: Superiority of “multi-channel” devices
Abstract
Spinal cord stimulation has evolved over the past 20 years into an easily implemented technique, with low morbidity, for the treatment of intractable, chronic pain in properly selected patients. We report our experience with a series of 62 patients implanted between 1983 and 1987, with percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes, and with single- and "multi-channel" (programmable, multi-contact) devices. Fifty had chronic, intractable low back and leg pain ("failed back surgery syndrome," lumbar arachnoid fibrosis), five had spinal cord injuries, and seven "peripheral" pathology or stump pain. Statistical analysis of these and other patient characteristics and technical factors was undertaken to identify predictors of outcome. All patients were interviewed by a disinterested third party at a mean of 2.14 years following implantation. A majority of patients reported at least 50% sustained relief of pain and indicated that they would go through the procedure again for the same result. There was corresponding improvement in ability to perform various everyday activities, and decrease in use of analgesics. Ten of 40 failed back patients who were disabled before the procedure returned to work postoperatively. Superposition of stimulation paresthesias upon a patient's topography of pain was found to be a statistically significant predictor of successful relief of pain, by linear regression methods. Univariate and multivariate analysis of patient characteristics and technical factors as predictors of outcome demonstrated significant advantages for female patients, and for patients implanted with "multi-channel" devices. With these devices, electrode geometries with central cathode(s) flanked by rostral and caudal anode(s) were favored disproportionately. Technical improvements in implanted spinal cord stimulation devices, in particular the development of multi-contact percutaneous electrode arrays and supporting programmable electronics, have significantly improved clinical results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods
Jensen, M. P., Karoly, P., & Braver, S. (1986) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9 · Cited by 3,275
Cited by
Cameron, T. (2004) · Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine · doi:10.3171/spi.2004.100.3.0254 · Cited by 799
Neural recording and modulation technologies
Chen, R., Canales, A., & Anikeeva, P. (2017) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.93 · Cited by 655
Kumar, K., Hunter, G., & Demeria, D. (2006) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000192162.99567.96 · Cited by 488
Eldabe, S., Buchser, E., & Duarte, R. V. (2016) · Pain Medicine · doi:10.1093/pm/pnv025 · Cited by 403
Burchiel, K. J., Anderson, V. C., Brown, F. D., Fessler, R. G., Friedman, W. A., Pelofsky, S., Weiner, R. L., Oakley, J., & Shatin, D. (1996) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199612010-00015 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- North, R. B., Ewend, M. G., Lawton, M. T., & Piantadosi, S.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1991-02
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 119-130
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090174301
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spinal cord stimulation for chronic, intractable pain: Superiority of “multi-channel” devices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-3959(91)90125-h
- The paper
- North, R. B., Ewend, M. G., Lawton, M. T., & Piantadosi, S. (1991). Spinal cord stimulation for chronic, intractable pain: Superiority of “multi-channel” devices. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(91)90125-h
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.