ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026
[New paradigms in spinal cord stimulation (SCS): technology and clinical evidence].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) has developed from the classical tonic, paresthesia-based stimulation to an increasingly differentiated, personalized neuromodulation. New paradigms such as high-frequency SCS, burst stimulation, differential target multiplexed (DTM™) SCS, and closed-loops expand the therapeutic spectrum, particularly in chronic neuropathic back and leg pain. Today, paresthesia-free forms of stimulation, adaptive control systems, physiological feedback parameters, and data-based programming are at the forefront technologically. Clinical studies show appreciable pain reduction for many of these procedures, improved quality of life, and partial advantages compared with conventional SCS. At the same time, questions regarding long-term efficacy, patient selection, mechanisms of action, and cost-benefit relationship remain unanswered. Overall, the new SCS paradigms mark a shift away from the symptom-oriented electrostimulation to an individualized, neurophysiology-based pain therapy.
objectiveThe aim of this review article is to present the current technological developments in SCS and critically assess the clinical evidence. MATERIALS AND
methodsThere follows a narrative literature review on conventional tonic SCS, 10-kHz high-frequency SCS, burst SCS, FAST™ (fast-acting subperception therapy), differential target multiplexed (DTM™) SCS, closed-loop SCS/electrically evoked compound action potentials(ECAPs)-guided SCS, as well as related precision tools such as dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation.
resultsNew SCS paradigms enable paresthesia-free or adaptive therapy and address the limitations of conventional SCS, in particular in axial back pain, position-dependent stimulation, and patient-specific variability. The strongest evidence is available for 10-kHz SCS, ECAP-guided closed-loop-SCS, burst-SCS, DTM SCS, as well as DRG stimulation in selected neuropathic pain syndromes.
conclusionModern SCS should not be considered as a single procedure but as a spectrum of technologically differing therapies. Strict indication criteria, multidisciplinary patient selection, and realistic evaluation of the available evidence remain crucial to clinical success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268393What 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.