ReviewCurrent pain and headache reports2026
Evolving Treatment Options for Spinal Pain: Balancing Innovation and Affordability in Regenerative Medicine.
Review in Current pain and headache reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRegenerative approaches for treating spinal pain hold great clinical promise but have the potential to disrupt healthcare upending the cost paradigm of pharmacologic care or interventional procedures. Regenerative approaches have higher upfront costs but may offer long-lasting, even curative benefits. In today's healthcare system, it is important to understand the cost-effectiveness of regenerative approaches using mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and other biologics. This narrative review explored the costs of these procedures for treating spinal pain, but since this specific indication is not currently approved for clinical use in the United States, cost data were sparse. RECENT
findingsThis study was based on a narrative review and data obtained from the literature and available to the authors from a scientific session. While regenerative medicine is approved for certain indications, it has not yet been approved for use to treat painful spinal conditions, although there is evidence that it is a safe and effective procedure in this setting. In fact, PRP approaches to other musculoskeletal painful conditions are approved and increasing, according to Medicare. When compared to fusion surgery, MSC treatment of discogenic disease cost approximately $11,000 in the United States compared to two years of epidural spinal injections costing approximately $900 each; the regenerative approaches offered better pain reduction (66% vs. 35% to 51%). Spinal fusion surgery runs $79,595 to $105,657 according to current procedural terminology. Once regenerative approaches for the spine are approved, there may be more data to provide greater insight into cost-effectiveness analyses. There is a paucity of cost data and since these procedures are off label, these figures are subject to change and may vary regionally. Regenerative medicine offers the potential to greatly advance the treatment of back pain, but in today's cost-conscious healthcare system, cost considerations must be weighed along with efficacy and safety data.
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.