Spinal Cord Stimulation for Spasticity: Historical Approaches, Current Status, and Future Directions
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, ISSN: 1094-7159, Vol: 20, Issue: 4, Page: 307-321
2017
- 64Citations
- 145Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations64
- Citation Indexes64
- 64
- CrossRef37
- Captures145
- Readers145
- 145
Review Description
Millions of people worldwide suffer with spasticity related to irreversible damage to the brain or spinal cord. Typical antecedent events include stroke, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury, although insidious onset is also common. Regardless of the cause, the resulting spasticity leads to years of disability and reduced quality of life. Many treatments are available to manage spasticity; yet each is fraught with drawbacks including incomplete response, high cost, limited duration, dose-limiting side effects, and periodic maintenance. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a once promising therapy for spasticity, has largely been relegated to permanent experimental status. In this review, our goal is to document and critique the history and assess the development of SCS as a treatment of lower limb spasticity. By incorporating recent discoveries with the insights gained from the early pioneers in this field, we intend to lay the groundwork needed to propose testable hypotheses for future studies. SCS has been tested in over 25 different conditions since a potentially beneficial effect was first reported in 1973. However, the lack of a fully formed understanding of the pathophysiology of spasticity, archaic study methodology, and the early technological limitations of implantable hardware limit the validity of many studies. SCS offers a measure of control for spasticity that cannot be duplicated with other interventions. With improved energy-source miniaturization, tailored control algorithms, novel implant design, and a clearer picture of the pathophysiology of spasticity, we are poised to reintroduce and test SCS in this population.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094715921038678; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.12591; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85017103032&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28370802; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1094715921038678; https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.12591
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know