Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrae
James, let me ask you this. What do you propose is the diagnosis of Nanc, myself and many others on this forum? If your statement above rings true, then either A) we have all been misdiagnosed, B) the outcomes of what we share is fabricated, C) you've done a world-wide research and have IN FACT found that every single CRPS with implants have failed, or D) you simply have made a false statement.
Posting inaccurate information on a forum does not fly.
Here's just one documented study that proves there ARE positive results for CRPS recipients:
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/...109/2/592.full
Like I said prior, these case studies are not necessarily anything to base all truth on. These clinical trials are usually exclusive to a small demographic region and only select patients are used.
I've also seen some of the case studies in which indicate low rates of success for CRPS. It goes both ways.
All we are politely asking is that you refrain from making statements such as these. They simpy are NOT true.
Wouldn't it sound rather ridiculous if some of us were to come here insisting that ALL SCS implants for CRPS pts are sure to be successful? I'm sure that would pretty much step on alot of toes.
You've made your point of how much you are against SCS and that is fair, as you yourself had a very unfortunate outcome and you have every right to feel this way. But don't come here to a forum full of people actively using SCS's and insisting there are no successes for the very diagnosis that alot of us have been living with for years.
I am not trying to be argumentive, nor do I undermine the fact that yes there ARE alot of failed outcomes out there. There is a very diverse group of testimonies here, including the positive and negative.
You've given very good input to the original poster of this thread and your valid concern about pregnancy. At some point you are going to have to trust that she is a 30 yr old woman who might know more than you give her credit for and that this ultimately is between her and her doctor. She's heard your viewpoint and can take that into consideration at her next visit with Dr.
My only regret is that her thread has been hijacked with headbutting and disagreement. When I see a statement with false info made once and twice, possibly scaring off somebody coming here for support, I WILL speak up.
Rae |
Learning how to interpret research data when diagnosed with any chronic illness is valuable. It can be crucial to someone with CRPS who is considering implantation of a SCS. The conclusions drawn by authors of much of the research pertaining to SCS and CRPS is suspect, not only to the frequent connections to the manufacturers but also due to flawed research methodology.
Spinal cord stimulation is effective in management of complex regional pain syndrome I: fact or fiction, Kumar K, Rizvi S, Bnurs SB, Neurosurgery 2011 Sep;69(3):566-78; discussion 578-80, the article posted by Rae is a typical example.
Reference the commentary of Robert J. Coffey, M.D., a neurosurgeon in Thousand Oaks CA who was, employed by Medtronic (pp.578-79) (One must wonder if Dr. Coffey learned of the high failure rate and spreads caused by the devices while on the company’s pay roll.
In his commentary, Dr. Coffey clearly details the critically flawed research methodology. Dr. Coffey points out that the study participants were hand picked by the authors, and that the authors failed to provide criteria by which it may be established that the study participants even had the diagnosis of CRPS. Dr Coffey basically drew the conclusion that SCS for CRPS was not viable. These flaws, in addition to the poor research methodology noted by the authors themselves, as well as the relatively short period of time under review negate the conclusions drawn by the authors.
Best to all!