Prospective study of the success and efficacy of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity455 @entity602 @entity158 @entity11252 @entity1118 @entity9
AIM: To explore success, the percentage of @entity1 who received definitive implants compared to all @entity1 screened, and efficacy, the percentage of @entity1 that had improved in at least 3 of the 5 parameters after 1 year. In addition, we determined if there was a statistically significant reduction in @entity158 and functional limiting. Finally, we wanted to investigate if the different paresthesia coverage has a different outcome after 1 year of @entity602 treatment. METHODS: We studied 170 @entity1 with @entity9 , @entity11252 and @entity455 , who received @entity602 ( @entity602 ) in the last 4 years. We evaluated, at the beginning and after 1 year, the @entity1 with a questionnaire that assessed @entity158 , what kind of function, drug consumption, @entity1 's satisfaction and the improvement in the quality of life. RESULTS: This study showed a success of more than 50% and an efficacy of more than 69.9%, with no significant differences in 3 different @entity1118 conditions. @entity158 and functional limiting presented a statistically significant reduction. Finally, we confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences between @entity1 with different paresthesia coverage. CONCLUSION: This prospective study confirmed that @entity602 had good success and efficacy in the treatment of several types of @entity1118 . Finally, our study showed the importance of obtaining paresthesia in the affected area but it is not essential to cover the entire @entity158 area.
