OMG is obviously in a big, new push for Boston Un-Scientific. Don't you find it to be a bit unclassy, or even criminal? Let the pt go home with the device for another 2-4 day trial, to really test it out. Your leading questions during your 15 minute "trials" do nothing to help advance the therapy in a positive light. If you are with Boston, and pull out an OMG, you should be ashamed of yourself, and have trouble sleeping at night! My two cents.
Oh My GOD, cry me a f@hking river for giving the patient a head to head comparison. Sounds like somebody is getting their ass handed to them.
So what's the shady part? Do you know the questions to the trial? Normally when you title a thread you explain your point...what is the point you're trying to make with evidence?
'tard. You obviously need a refresher on what the word transitive means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_property
A "head to head comparison?" How is a 15-30 minute "trial," in office, called "head to head." At least let the patient take home OMG and put it through the ringers, like their StJ or MDT trial...bottom line, I agree with the first poster that this is a sham. Show us. Real trial of the differences. Regardless of what all three companies say, "Stim is Stim." if the leads are in the right spot, you will get tingling in your areas of pain. The only change to the market is the new Medtronic adaptive stimulator. I work for StJ, but see a distinct competitive advantage to this new technology... Regardless, I'd rather loss to an adaptive stimulator vs. OMG, any day. Stop misleading our physicians and customers with your device. And stop incentivizing its use by over $200 a pop, if you want any real credibility. I will tell every StJ tral pt about you, and your pushy sales tactics to earn a mere $200 by lying to patients. Greats"credibility" BSX...Wow...
In neuromodulation, there are no IS (industry standard) leads and headers. All manufactures have proprietary leads and headers. So, you can't use Medtronic Leads on BSC or ST. Jude cans and vice versa. Additionally, there are no prophylactic indications for a spinal cord stimulator implant; each patient is implanted with a temporary system which is "trialed" for about a week. When the patient comes back at the end of the trial the leads are removed and the patient is asked if at least 50% of the pain was alleviated. At this point, if the patient liked the sensation of the stimulator, he or she will be scheduled for a permanent implant. On average, about 60-70% of all trials go to permanent implant. There are a variety of reasons that 30-40% of all trials fail, we won't get into them here. The company that conducted the trial, gets the permanent implant about 99% of the time. BSC developed an adapter, called OMG, that can adapt St. Jude and Medtronic trial leads to their temporary stimulator. They ask doctors for the opportunity to speak with patients whom have failed trials with other companies. The rep will then connect their OMG and try to convince the patient that BSC's stimulation is better than the others. It is the idea of "stealing" trial patients combined with the idea that trying to "convince" patients that BSC's therapy is better that has made most people question the practice of using OMG. Hope this helps.
Morally speaking: if even a percentage of those "failed" trial patients get relief from another company's device then it is the right thing to do. Strategically speaking: it should be no surprise that a company in this market would look for ways to capture more business, just as it is no surprise that each company would create it's own proprietary connection in order to protect business. Not having an IS-1 equivalent....now THAT'S shady, since the size and shape of the pin really doesn't have anything to do with how the therapy is delivered. What you're implying is that whatever company gets to a patient first has "dibs", and that any other company that gets involved after that is up to no good, right?
Why on earth would a physician allow a rep with a vested interest in the decision discuss this with a patient? While the physician has a financial interest in performing a procedure, they also have a moral and legal obligation to act in the patients best interest, if they believe it is appropriate to try a different stimulator then they should be having that discussion with their patient.
With due respect to poster #12, this is precisely why OMG is shady. There is no way to remove the substantial bias from the process in which OMG is used. It is not advisable to try and convince a pain patient to accept an implant.
Every patient is different and presents in their own way. Based on that, you are right - a physician has a moral and legal obligation to suggest hooking OMG up and giving another 'therapy' a whirl. So, if the physician does not exercise this moral and legal duty, and they delegate that to a Boston Sci rep - is it the BSX reps fault or is it the physicians? And, if the patient gets better results in the end - who really cares?
Better to sit there, listen to them suffer and send them on their way? Of course it's advisable to use your years of schooling and professional experience to bring the best possible options to mind....it's called being a Doctor. Now, your problem is with the fact that some doctors delegate their responsibility to sales reps. I agree that's not ideal, but this is the doctors fault and not the reps.
OMG are Shady and have an ever higher rate of post infection. From my personal experience - that's why I left Boston Scientific. A sales rep reputation and integrity is all one has in our industry
