ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Spinal Cord Stimulation Explantation and Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Technology Recommendations.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards Selective Trial Stimulation in Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical and Psychological Evidence for an Individualised Implantation Strategy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Next-Generation SCS Programming Platform: Enhancing ECAP Fidelity and Objectivity to Improve Patient Experience.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Home-Based Remote Programming versus Inpatient Programming After Short-Term Spinal Cord Stimulation for Herpes Zoster Neuralgia: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Spooky action at a distance: neuromodulation, physiologic distress signals, and limb preservation.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for refractory phantom limb pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond device parameters: psychological predictors of spinal cord stimulation success and their neurobiological mechanisms-a narrative review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of PSPS Type 1 from the Belgian Perspective.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Consensus Recommendations on Programming and Coding Implantable Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices for Treatment of Chronic Intractable Pain.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- A Comparative Cost-Consequence Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in an Integrated Health System.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- First Objective Evidence Characterizing Differences in Cervical and Thoracic Spinal Cord Neurophysiology Using ECAP-Controlled Closed-Loop Technology.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Real-World Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Consecutive Institutional Experience with 505 Trials, Trial-to-Implant Ratio, Long-Term Efficacy, and Explantation Risk Factors.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain affects 20.5% of the US population, costing $296 billion annually in lost productivity. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a key treatment for refractory neuropathic and nociceptive pain, with increasing usage due to technological advancements. However, the durability of SCS therapy, including explantation rates, remains a concern. Understanding explantation causes is essential for improving patient selection and device effectiveness. This study aims to analyze SCS explantation rates and reasons, as well as evaluate the financial burden of these procedures on the healthcare system. Methods: Three primary screening methods were used: manual search with keywords, MeSH term query, and reference list screening. The search covered PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 2024, yielding 719 articles. After applying eligibility criteria, 72 articles were identified, and 25 were selected for analysis. Data extraction was done by independent reviewers, with a second reviewer ensuring accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved by the corresponding editor. Results: We reviewed data from 13,026 patients who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 1984 and 2024, across 25 studies. A total of 1882 patients (9.82%) underwent explantation. The most common reason was lack of efficacy and inadequate pain relief (38%), followed by lead failure (15%) and infection (14%). While SCS is generally effective, issues related to device longevity and patient satisfaction persist, with explantation rates due to technical failures and lack of efficacy being concerns. Conclusion: SCS efficacy varies, with explantation rates reaching up to 38%, often due to inadequate pain relief. Most explantations occur within the first year, despite SCS being a safe and effective treatment. High implantation costs ($35,000 to $70,000) and revision costs ($15,000 to $25,000) raise concerns among payors. The hardware-driven model limits waveform flexibility, highlighting the need for innovation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.