Cost-effectiveness Of Spinal Cord Stimulation Research Articles

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Conventional Therapies for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review of Health Care Resource Utilization and Outcomes in the Last Decade

The purpose of this review is to critically appraise the literature for evidence supporting the health care resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional therapies (CTs) for chronic low back and leg pain. The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine databases were searched for studies published from January 2008 through October 2018, using the following MeSH terms: "spinal cord stimulation," "chronic pain," "back pain," "patient readmission," "economics," and "costs and cost analysis." Additional sources were added based on bibliographies and consultation with experts. The following data were extracted and analyzed: demographic information, study design, objectives, sample sizes, outcome measures, SCS indications, complications, costs, readmissions, and resource utilization data. Of 204 studies screened, 11 studies met inclusion criteria, representing 31,439 SCS patients and 299,182 CT patients. The mean age was 53.5 years for SCS and 55.6 years for CT. In eight of 11 studies, SCS was associated with favorable outcomes and found to be more cost-effective than CT for chronic low back pain. Compared with CT, SCS resulted in shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates and health care costs at 90 days. SCS was associated with significant improvement in health-related quality of life, health status, and quality-adjusted life-years. For the treatment of chronic low back and leg pain, the majority of studies are of fair quality, with level 3 or 4 evidence in support of SCS as potentially more cost-effective than CT, with less resource expenditure but higher complication rates. SCS therapy may yet play a role in mitigating the financial burden associated with chronic low back and leg pain.

Response to: Clinical Use, Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Used to Treat Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

Response to: Clinical Use, Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Used to Treat Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

Neuropathic Pain after Spinal Surgery.

Neuropathic pain after spinal surgery, the so-called failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), is a frequently observed troublesome disease entity. Although medications may be effective to some degree, many patients continue experiencing intolerable pain and functional disability. Only gabapentin has been proven effective in patients with FBSS. No relevant studies regarding manipulation or physiotherapy for FBSS have been published. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been widely investigated as a treatment option for chronic neuropathic pain, including FBSS. SCS was generally accepted to improve chronic back and leg pain, physical function, and sleep quality. Although the cost effectiveness of SCS has been proved in many studies, its routine application is limited considering that it is invasive and is associated with safety issues. Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis has also shown good clinical outcomes; however, its effects persisted for only a short period. Because none of the current methods provide absolute superiority in terms of clinical outcomes, a multidisciplinary approach is required to manage this complex disease. Further studies concerning the etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and cost effectiveness of FBSS are warranted to deepen our understanding of this condition.

Letter to the editor: Clinical Use, Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Used to Treat Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

Letter to the editor: Clinical Use, Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Used to Treat Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

A Spinal Cord Stimulation Service Review From a Single Centre Using a Single Manufacturer Over a 7.5 Year Follow-Up Period

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized management option for patients with refractory neuropathic pain. Despite randomized controlled trials reporting the effectiveness of SCS, there is a lack of long-term data reflecting usual SCS practice. The aim of this study is to present the long-term outcomes of a cohort of patients from a single centre undertaking SCS with devices from a single manufacturer. Data were collected between January 2008 and July 2015 on 321 patients who had an SCS trial. Outcome measures included numerical rating scale of pain intensity (NRSPI), brief pain inventory (BPI), EQ5D and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Adverse effects also were recorded. Statistically significant reductions in NRSPI and BPI and increases in health utility using the EQ5d were observed. SCS over a 15-year time period resulted in a mean projected gain of 6.2 QALY. The rates of implant infection and device explantation were 2.3% (2.4% not including legacy patients) and 6.7% (7.6% not including legacy patients) respectively but only 3.4% (4% excluding legacy patients) explanted due to late failure to relieve pain. Satisfaction with SCS was high with 92% of patients stating that they would have it all done again for the same result. 96.4% would have wanted SCS as a treatment option earlier. Patients with neuropathic pain undertaking SCS experience long-term reductions in pain intensity and increases in health utility and associated QALY gains. The findings from this study associated with the increased longevity of rechargeable SCS devices suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SCS may become increasingly favourable when compared with conventional medical management.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina (RASCAL Study): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundPatients with “refractory angina” (RA) unsuitable for coronary revascularization experience high levels of hospitalization and poor health‐related quality of life. Randomized trials have shown spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to be a promising treatment for chronic stable angina and RA; however, none has compared SCS with usual care (UC). The aim of this pilot study was to address the key uncertainties of conducting a definitive multicenter trial to assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of SCS in RA patients, i.e., recruitment and retention of patients, burden of outcome measures, our ability to standardize UC in a UK NHS setting.Methods RA patients deemed suitable were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to SCS plus UC (SCS group) or UC alone (UC group). We sought to assess: recruitment, uptake, and retention of patients; feasibility and acceptability of SCS treatment; the feasibility and acceptability of standardizing UC; and the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed trial outcome measures. Patient outcomes were assessed at baseline (prerandomization) and three and six months postrandomization.ResultsWe failed to meet our planned recruitment target (45 patients) and randomized 29 patients (15 SCS group, 14 UC group) over a 42‐month period across four sites. None of the study participants chose to withdraw following consent and randomization. With exception of two deaths, all completed evaluation at baseline and follow‐up. Although the study was not formally powered to compare outcomes between groups, we saw a trend toward larger improvements in both primary and secondary outcomes in the SCS group.ConclusionsWhile patient recruitment was found to be challenging, levels of participant retention, outcome completion, and acceptability of SCS therapy were high. A number of lessons are presented in order to take forward a future definitive pragmatic randomized trial.

Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in Management of Chronic Pain

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and refractory angina pectoris (RAP). Markov models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCS vs CMM alone from the perspective of a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health. Each model followed costs and outcomes in 6-month cycles. Health effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were gathered from public sources and expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars (CAN$). Costs and effects were calculated over a 20-year time horizon and discounted at 3.5% annually, as suggested by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Cost-effectiveness was identified by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (50,000 Monte-Carlo iterations). Outcome measures were: cost, QALY, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), and strategy selection frequency. The ICER for SCS was: CAN$ 9,293 (FBSS), CAN$ 11,216 (CRPS), CAN$ 9,319 (PAD), CAN$ 9,984 (RAP) per QALY gained, respectively. SCS provided the optimal economic path. The probability of SCS being cost-effective compared with CMM was 75-95% depending on pathology. SCS generates a positive INMB for treatment of pain syndromes. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were robust to plausible variations in model costs and effectiveness inputs. Per-patient EVPI was low, indicating that gathering additional information for model parameters would not significantly impact results. SCS with CMM is cost-effective compared with CMM alone in the management of FBSS, CRPS, PAD, and RAP.

Predictors of Pain Relief Following Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Back and Leg Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Regression Analysis

We sought to assess the extent to which pain relief in chronic back and leg pain (CBLP) following spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is influenced by patient-related factors, including pain location, and technology factors. A number of electronic databases were searched with citation searching of included papers and recent systematic reviews. All study designs were included. The primary outcome was pain relief following SCS, we also sought pain score (pre- and post-SCS). Multiple predictive factors were examined: location of pain, history of back surgery, initial level of pain, litigation/worker's compensation, age, gender, duration of pain, duration of follow-up, publication year, continent of data collection, study design, quality score, method of SCS lead implant, and type of SCS lead. Between-study association in predictive factors and pain relief were assessed by meta-regression. Seventy-four studies (N = 3,025 patients with CBLP) met the inclusion criteria; 63 reported data to allow inclusion in a quantitative analysis. Evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) in level of pain relief following SCS was noted. The mean level of pain relief across studies was 58% (95% CI: 53% to 64%, random effects) at an average follow-up of 24 months. Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed no predictive patient or technology factors. SCS was effective in reducing pain irrespective of the location of CBLP. This review supports SCS as an effective pain relieving treatment for CBLP with predominant leg pain with or without a prior history of back surgery. Randomized controlled trials need to confirm the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCS in the CLBP population with predominant low back pain.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina (RASCAL study): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundThe RASCAL (Refractory Angina Spinal Cord stimulation and usuAL care) pilot study seeks to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess if addition of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to usual care is clinically superior and more cost-effective than usual care alone in patients with refractory angina.Methods/designThis is an external pilot, patient-randomized controlled trial.The study will take place at three centers in the United Kingdom - South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital), Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.The subjects will be 45 adults with refractory angina, that is, limiting angina despite optimal anti-angina therapy, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification Class III and IV, angiographically documented coronary artery disease not suitable for revascularization, satisfactory multidisciplinary assessment and demonstrable ischemia on functional testing.The study will be stratified by center, age and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Functional Classification.Interventions will involve spinal cord stimulation plus usual care (‘SCS group’) or usual care alone (‘UC group’). Usual care received by both groups will include consideration of an education session with a pain consultant, trial of a transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation, serial thoracic sympathectomy and oral/systemic analgesics.Expected outcomes will be recruitment and retention rates; reasons for agreeing/declining participation; variability in primary and secondary outcomes (to inform power calculations for a definitive trial); and completion rates of outcome measures. Trial patient-related outcomes include disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, angina exercise capacity, intake of angina medications, frequency of angina attacks, complications and adverse events, and satisfaction.DiscussionThe RASCAL pilot trial seeks to determine the feasibility and design of a definitive randomized controlled trial comparing the addition of spinal cord stimulation to usual care versus usual care alone for patients with refractory angina.Fifteen patients have been recruited since recruitment opened in October 2011. The trial was originally scheduled to end in April 2013 but due to slow recruitment may have to be extended to late 2013.Trial registrationISRCTN65254102

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Prospective cohort study. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) among workers' compensation recipients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence suggests that SCS is more effective at 6 months than medical management for patients with FBSS. However, procedure costs are high and workers' compensation claimants often have worse outcomes than other patients. We enrolled 158 FBSS patients receiving workers' compensation into three treatment groups: trial SCS with or without permanent device implant (n = 51), pain clinic (PC) evaluation with or without treatment (n = 39), and usual care (UC; n = 68). The primary outcome was a composite measure of pain, disability and opioid medication use. As reported previously, 5% of SCS patients, 3% of PC patients and 10% of UC patients achieved the primary outcome at 24 months. Using cost data from administrative databases, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of SCS, adjusting for baseline covariates. Mean medical cost per SCS patient over 24 months was $52,091. This was $17,291 (95% confidence intervals [CI], $4100-30,490) higher than in the PC group and $28,128 ($17,620-38,630) higher than in the UC group. Adjusting for baseline covariates, the mean total medical and productivity loss costs per patient of the SCS group were $20,074 ($3840-35,990) higher than those of the PC group and $29,358 ($16,070-43,790) higher than those of the UC group. SCS was very unlikely (<5% probability) to be the most cost-effective intervention. In this sample of workers' compensation recipients, the high procedure cost of SCS was not counterbalanced by lower costs of subsequent care, and SCS was not cost-effective. The benefits and potential cost savings reported in RCTs may not be replicated in workers' compensation patients treated in community settings.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Re-operation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: An International Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (EVIDENCE Study)

This paper presents the protocol of the EVIDENCE study, a multicenter multinational randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with rechargeable pulse generator versus re-operation through 36-month follow-up in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Study subjects have neuropathic radicular leg pain exceeding or equaling any low back pain and meet specified entry criteria. One-to-one randomization is stratified by site and by one or more prior lumbosacral operations. The sample size of 132 subjects may be adjusted to between 100 and 200 subjects using a standard adaptive design statistical method with pre-defined rules. Crossover treatment is possible. Co-primary endpoints are proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 50% leg pain relief without crossover at 6 and at 24 months after SCS screening trial or re-operation. Insufficient pain relief constitutes failure of randomized treatment, as does crossover. Secondary endpoints include cost-effectiveness; relief of leg, back, and overall pain; change in disability and quality of life; and rate of crossover. We are collecting data on subject global impression of change, patient satisfaction with treatment, employment status, pain/paresthesia overlap, SCS programming, and adverse events. As the first multicenter randomized controlled trial of SCS versus re-operation and the first to use only rechargeable SCS pulse generators, the EVIDENCE study will provide up-to-date evidence on the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.

The Cost-effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Healthcare policy makers and payers require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform their treatment funding decisions. Thus, in 2008, the United Kingdom's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence analyzed the cost effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional medical management (CMM) and with reoperation and recommended approval of SCS in selected patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We present previously unavailable details of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence analysis and an analysis of the impact on SCS cost effectiveness of rechargeable implanted pulse generators (IPGs). We used a decision analytic model to examine the cost effectiveness of SCS versus CMM and versus reoperation in patients with FBSS. We also modeled the impact of nonrechargeable versus rechargeable IPGs. The incremental cost-effectiveness of SCS compared with CMM was pound5624 per quality-adjusted life year, with 89% probability that SCS is cost effective at a willingness to pay threshold of pound20,000. Compared with reoperation, the incremental cost-effectiveness of SCS was pound6392 per quality-adjusted life year, with 82% probability of cost-effectiveness at the pound20,000 threshold. When the longevity of an IPG is 4 years or less, a rechargeable (and initially more expensive) IPG is more cost-effective than a nonrechargeable IPG. In selected patients with FBSS, SCS is cost effective both as an adjunct to CMM and as an alternative to reoperation. Despite their initial increased expense, rechargeable IPGs should be considered when IPG longevity is likely to be short.

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation

This report addressed the question 'What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of chronic neuropathic or ischaemic pain?' Thirteen electronic databases [including MEDLINE (1950-2007), EMBASE (1980-2007) and the Cochrane Library (1991-2007)] were searched from inception; relevant journals were hand-searched; and appropriate websites for specific conditions causing chronic neuropathic/ischaemic pain were browsed. Literature searches were conducted from August 2007 to September 2007. A systematic review of the literature sought clinical and cost-effectiveness data for SCS in adults with chronic neuropathic or ischaemic pain with inadequate response to medical or surgical treatment other than SCS. Economic analyses were performed to model the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of SCS in patients with neuropathic or ischaemic pain. From approximately 6000 citations identified, 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three of neuropathic pain and eight of ischaemic pain. Trials were available for the neuropathic conditions failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I, and they suggested that SCS was more effective than conventional medical management (CMM) or reoperation in reducing pain. The ischaemic pain trials had small sample sizes, meaning that most may not have been adequately powered to detect clinically meaningful differences. Trial evidence failed to demonstrate that pain relief in critical limb ischaemia (CLI) was better for SCS than for CMM; however, it suggested that SCS was effective in delaying refractory angina pain onset during exercise at short-term follow-up, although not more so than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for those patients eligible for that surgery. The results for the neuropathic pain model suggested that the cost-effectiveness estimates for SCS in patients with FBSS who had inadequate responses to medical or surgical treatment were below 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In patients with CRPS who had had an inadequate response to medical treatment the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 25,095 pounds per QALY gained. When the SCS device costs varied from 5000 pounds to 15,000 pounds, the ICERs ranged from 2563 pounds per QALY to 22,356 pounds per QALY for FBSS when compared with CMM and from 2283 pounds per QALY to 19,624 pounds per QALY for FBSS compared with reoperation. For CRPS the ICERs ranged from 9374 pounds per QALY to 66,646 pounds per QALY. If device longevity (1 to 14 years) and device average price (5000 pounds to 15,000 pounds) were varied simultaneously, ICERs were below or very close to 30,000 pounds per QALY when device longevity was 3 years and below or very close to 20,000 pounds per QALY when device longevity was 4 years. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the costs of CMM, device longevity and average device cost, showing that ICERs for CRPS were higher. In the ischaemic model, it was difficult to determine whether SCS represented value for money when there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate its comparative efficacy. The threshold analysis suggested that the most favourable economic profiles for treatment with SCS were when compared to CABG in patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and in patients eligible for CABG and PCI. In these two cases, SCS dominated (it cost less and accrued more survival benefits) over CABG. The evidence suggested that SCS was effective in reducing the chronic neuropathic pain of FBSS and CRPS type I. For ischaemic pain, there may need to be selection criteria developed for CLI, and SCS may have clinical benefit for refractory angina short-term. Further trials of other types of neuropathic pain or subgroups of ischaemic pain, may be useful.

Spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome: A decision-analytic model and cost-effectiveness analysis

The aim of this study was to develop a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), relative to nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM), for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). A decision tree and Markov model were developed to synthesize evidence on both health-care costs and outcomes for patients with FBSS. Outcome data of SCS and CMM were sourced from 2-year follow-up data of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were measured as levels of pain relief. Short- and long-term health-care costs were obtained from a detailed Canadian costing study in FBSS patients. Results are presented as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and expressed in 2003 Euros. Costs were discounted at 6 percent and outcomes at 1.5 percent. Over the lifetime of the patient, SCS was dominant (i.e., SCS is cost-saving and gives more health gain relative to CMM); a finding that was robust across sensitivity analyses. At a 2-year time horizon, SCS gave more health gain but at an increased cost relative to CMM. Given the uncertainty in effectiveness and cost parameters, the 2-year cost-effectiveness of SCS ranged from 30,370 Euros in the base case to 63,511 Euros in the worst-case scenario. SCS was found to be both more effective and less costly than CMM, over the lifetime of a patient. In the short-term, although SCS is potentially cost-effective, the model results are highly sensitive to the choice of input parameters. Further empirical data are required to improve the precision in the estimation of short-term cost-effectiveness.

Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors

Objective To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and identify the potential predictors of SCS outcome. Design Systematic review of the literature and meta-regression. Methods Electronic databases were searched for controlled and uncontrolled studies and economic evaluations relating to the use of SCS in patients with either CRPS type I or II. Results One randomised controlled trial, 25 case series and one cost-effectiveness study were included. In the randomised controlled trial in type I CRPS patients, SCS therapy lead to a reduction in pain intensity at 24 months of follow-up (mean change in VAS score −2.0), whereas pain was unchanged in the control group (mean change in VAS score 0.0) ( p < 0.001). In the case series studies, 67% (95% CI 51%, 84%) of type I and type II CRPS patients implanted with SCS reported pain relief of at least 50% over a median follow-up period of 33 months. No statistically significant predictors of pain relief with SCS were observed in multivariate meta-regression analysis across studies. An economic analysis based on the randomised controlled trial showed a lifetime cost saving of approximately €58,470 (US$60,800) with SCS plus physical therapy compared with physical therapy alone. The mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12-month follow-up was €22,580 (US$23,480). Conclusions SCS appears to be an effective therapy in the management of patients with CRPS type I (Level A evidence) and type II (Level D evidence). Moreover, there is evidence to demonstrate that SCS is a cost-effective treatment for CRPS type I.

Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Severe Angina Pectoris – Long-Term Results from the ESBY Study

The present study is a 2-year follow-up of the 104 patients participating in the ESBY study (Electrical Stimulation versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Severe Angina Pectoris), a randomised prospective study including patients with increased surgical risk and no prognostic benefit from revascularisation. Hospital care costs, morbidity and causes of death after spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were assessed, as well as the complication rate of SCS treatment. SCS proved to be a less expensive symptomatic treatment modality of angina pectoris than CABG (p < 0.01). The SCS group had fewer hospitalisation days related to the primary intervention (p < 0.0001) and fewer hospitalisation days due to cardiac events (p < 0.05). The groups did not differ with regard to causes of death. There were no serious complications related to the SCS treatment.

Spinal Cord Stimulation: Cost-Benefit Study

Considering the relatively high cost of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) and the common experience of difficulty in securing funding or reimbursement for its implementation, it is, perhaps, surprising that the cost effectiveness of SCS has not been investigated and published to a much greater extent so that an evidence base is available to support applications for funds.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain syndromes.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for more than 30 years now, and although it has shown to be effective under certain well-described conditions of chronic pain, conclusive evidence on its effectiveness is still sparse. There is a need for more prospective and methodological good studies, in order to prove SCS efficacy for new or still questionable indications and to reveal prognostic factors for successful application. Especially at this moment, when governments are trying to control and reduce their health care expenses, studies on the cost-effectiveness of SCS are important. In contrast to the early years when SCS was applied by independent physicians exploring the field of neurostimulation, the importance of information exchange and coordination of studies has now been recognized. Recent technical improvements of SCS devices may positively influence clinical outcome.

Spinal cord stimulation: a valuable treatment for chronic failed back surgery patients.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used in the treatment of "chronic failed back surgery syndrome" for many years. To evaluate long-term results and cost effectiveness of SCS, we interviewed 69 patients treated during a period of 13 years. Twenty-six patients stopped using SCS; there was no clear explanation for this unsatisfactory result in 10. Forty-three patients continued with the therapy and obtained good pain relief. Electrode breakage either spontaneous or due to a procedure to obtain better stimulation paresthesias was more frequent in the radiofrequency-coupled system group than in the battery group (mean +/- SEM 2.81 +/- 2.0 versus 1.42 +/- 1.51, respectively; P = 0.0018). Ten patients obtained better pain relief than during the trial procedure. Some still need opioid analgesics, but 11 of the 16 who require these drugs obtained a synergistic effect when concomitantly using the stimulator. Eleven patients have returned to work. In our center, the application of SCS costs on average $3660 per patient per year. Although this seems expensive, it may be a cost-effective treatment if other therapies fail.