Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanb
If the after-effect of actual penetration of the brain's dura (in sham surgery, they drill the hole, but don't penetrate the dura) is different from the after-effect of true invasive brain surgery, then how can researchers claim the study is blind?
This question must be pursued because in my opinion, if it turns out to be true, then it is a big strike against using sham surgery.
|
There is NO such thing as a sham surgery for DBS trials anyway IMHO. First you are awake for it, and all the preparation for it, mounting and aligning the micro drive would be the first of many ways you could tell, others include the Micro Electrode recording, the actual placing of the lead, testing of same, the "honeymoon effect", to the one or two lumps that are caused by the IPG's which incidently you can test with an AM radio.
I think the actual process would give it away whether you were implanting leads or GDNF or what ever.
You could go from the trial drug to a placebo, or vice-versa, if there was some sort of metered delievery system. I think however that would be confusing to the tester and the the recipient.
Interesting thread!!
Charlie