(J Neurosurg 106:388-390, 2007)
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17367060&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is an international forum to review, discuss, and comment upon peer-reviewed peripheral nerve surgery literature. All topics will be considered, including nerve entrapments, nerve tumors, and nerve injuries throughout the body (including birth and traumatic brachial plexus injuries). Please add comments to any new or old articles. To suggest an article, or request the ability to post your own articles, email: peripheralnervesurgery@gmail.com
1 comment:
In agreement with a landmark publication by Hassenbusch et al. (1996) where approximately 27% of patients who undergo successful (>50% relief) peripheral nerve stimulation subsequently required surgical revisions for issues related to device design, the authors of the current study report a 33% incidence of revision likely caused by suboptimal design per se. If one also considers the relatively high incidence of device migration problems with supraorbital nerve stimulation, then it becomes quite evident that improved device design would in fact reduce revisions and optimize efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation.
Post a Comment