Successful treatment of pudendal neuralgia with tricolumn spinal cord stimulation: Case report
Neurosurgery, ISSN: 0148-396X, Vol: 71, Issue: 3, Page: E757-62; discussion E763
2012
- 22Citations
- 37Captures
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
- Citations22
- Citation Indexes22
- 22
- CrossRef19
- Captures37
- Readers37
- 37
Article Description
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE:: There is large variation in the success of decompressive surgery for pudendal neuralgia (PN), the most chronic, disabling form of perineal pain. We attempt to determine whether spinal cord stimulation using new-generation multicolumn leads could form part of the treatment algorithm for refractory PN. CLINICAL PRESENTATION:: A man with PN that was unresponsive to conventional treatment demonstrated a neuropathic component and had a negative response to nerve infiltrations (so he was not indicated for decompressive surgery) and a positive response to perianal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and was implanted with a 16-contact surgical lead at the level of conus medullaris, allowing multicolumn stimulation. Using transverse combinations, it was possible to obtain 100% paresthesia over the perineal area without unwanted dorsal root stimulation. Perineal and radicular pain was successfully relieved for up to 12 months (80% and 60% reduction in the visual analogue scale scores, respectively), with an improvement in all quality of life domains and a reduction in drug consumption. CONCLUSION:: Spinal cord stimulation using a 16-contact lead may be a viable therapeutic option for patients with refractory PN for whom decompressive surgery is contraindicated. Copyright © 2012 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84865790357&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e318260fd8f; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84865729301&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22653388; https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article-lookup/doi/10.1227/NEU.0b013e318260fd8f; http://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article-pdf/71/3/E757/17165035/00006123-201209000-00025.pdf; https://journals.lww.com/00006123-201209000-00025; https://dx.doi.org/10.1227/neu.0b013e318260fd8f; https://academic.oup.com/neurosurgery/article/71/3/E757/2606235
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know