Skip to main content
Download PDF

Neuromodulation in chronic pain management: addressing persistent doubts in spinal cord stimulation

Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care volume 5, Article number: 3 (2025) Cite this article

Introduction: the evolution of SCS

Over the past 50 years, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as one of the most effective treatments for chronic pain. Yet, despite its proven safety and efficacy and lack of adequate alternatives, insurers remain skeptical about the role of SCS. Despite compelling evidence, doubts about this transformative therapy persist, raising questions about the barriers to its broader adoption. Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that affects millions worldwide, diminishing quality of life and productivity. It affects over 30% of individuals globally, and high-impact pain affects 8% of the population. High-impact chronic pain is defined as pain that limits life activities or work on most, if not daily, over the previous 3 months. Despite this, pain is often underdiagnosed and undertreated [1]. For over half a century, SCS has become an effective, non-opioid, chronic pain treatment [2].

Traditional treatments, including medications and surgeries, often provide limited relief and come with significant risks and side effects. The number of patients needed to treat (NNT) to achieve more than 50% pain relief success in one patient using conventional pain management is low, from about 4 to 10 [3, 4]! Therefore, the SCS represents a valid alternative, where the NNT ranges from 1.2 to 2 [5] a technique in which a device is implanted near the spinal cord to deliver electrical impulses that modulate neural activity. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system placement

Full size image

Mechanisms of SCS and DRG stimulation

While the precise mechanisms are still debated, SCS modulates pain processing pathways in the spinal cord and brain through several mechanisms. It activates large sensory nerve fibers, such as A-beta fibers, which inhibit pain signals transmitted by smaller, chronic pain-specific fibers like C-fibers and A-delta fibers. Additionally, it influences wide dynamic range neurons (WDR) in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, reducing hyperexcitability and dampening central sensitization [6]. Beyond this, SCS has been shown to reduce neuroinflammation by inhibiting the activation of glial cells, which play a pivotal role in chronic pain syndromes. These changes can lead to a significant reduction in the perception of pain [6].

Recent advancements have also highlighted the role of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation in precisely targeting specific pain regions. DRG stimulation directly modulates the primary sensory neurons, allowing for enhanced focal control of pain signals and offering significant relief for conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and postsurgical groin pain.

Clinical impact and expanding applications

For many patients, SCS offers a life-changing reduction in pain, sometimes succeeding where other treatments have failed [7]. Utilization of SCS as a treatment option, however, varies significantly among nations and even within them. Despite supportive organizational guidelines, position statements, and a high level of clinical evidence for SCS in treating multiple conditions [7,8,9,10,11,12], patient referral and reimbursement for advanced treatment are infrequent and often delayed for years after symptom onset and disability development. The effectiveness of SCS is supported by extensive research [2, 7]. The efficacy of SCS is well-established in the management of refractory mixed neuropathic/nociceptive and neuropathic/radicular pain conditions, including persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), diabetic neuropathy, failed neck surgery syndrome, and low back pain in patients without indication for surgical treatment [2, 3]. Numerous studies have shown significant pain relief in these conditions (Table 1) [2, 7,8,9,10]. Clinical trials have demonstrated that SCS not only reduces pain but also decreases the need for opioid medications [13], which is a crucial benefit, especially during the ongoing opioid crisis.

Table 1 Indications, common complications, and limitations of spinal cord stimulation (SCS)
Full size table

In addition, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that SCS can effectively manage pain in conditions beyond traditional neuropathic pain syndromes. Specifically, studies have shown promising results in using SCS to alleviate chronic abdominal pain, where conventional therapies often fall short [24]. Similarly, SCS has been explored as a treatment option for chronic pelvic pain, providing relief for patients who have not responded to other interventions [24]. Moreover, research is increasingly supporting the use of SCS for refractory headache disorders, such as chronic migraines, where other treatments have failed [25]. These emerging applications of SCS highlight its potential as a versatile tool in managing complex and otherwise intractable pain conditions.

Limitations and future directions

However, the evidence for spinal cord stimulation has been criticized for the absence of blinded, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs [10]. Much of the research over the past 20 years has been comparative effectiveness trials concentrating on comparing standard of care or comparing multiple frequencies that have previously established efficacy. Critics argue that much of the current evidence relies on open-label studies or non-randomized trials, which are not placebo controlled, which may introduce biases and affect the reliability of the results.

That being said, there have been significant strides in the field, with multiple RCTs conducted across various neuromodulation therapies. Specifically, there are now 3 RCTs for burst stimulation, 1 RCT for closed-loop stimulation, 3 RCTs for 10-kHz high-frequency stimulation, 2 RCTs for dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, 2 RCTs associated with sub-threshold ≤ 1.2-kHz Boston Scientific devices, and 2 RCTs for differential target multiplexed (DTM) stimulation with Medtronic. These trials represent essential contributions to the growing body of evidence, although the need for more robust, blinded, and long-term studies remains [19, 26,27,28].

In addition, real-world, long-term data have suggested a possible loss of efficacy over time, raising concerns about the durability of SCS benefits with traditional systems [2].

More recently, advancements in paresthesia-free, novel waveforms and closed-loop stimulation have shown promise in improving long-term patient outcomes over traditional tonic stimulation. Additional studies could compare the effectiveness of therapeutic options [29]. Addressing these research gaps is crucial for establishing a solid scientific foundation for SCS and enhancing its clinical application.

While the benefits of SCS are significant, it is essential to acknowledge and understand the potential complications and limitations associated with this kind of therapy. Lead migration is one of the more common complications, which can occur in up to 5% of cases [2, 21, 30]. Electrode migration can lead to low efficacy as the electrical pulses are no longer directed at the intended area. With early devices, electrode fracture has had a reported prevalence as high as 5.9%, which has significantly improved over time [4, 22, 30]. Pocket pain, another frequent complication, can vary based on body habitus, surgical technique, body mass index (BMI), and implantable pulse generator (IPG) type [5, 31] (Table 1, Fig. 1). Rechargeable IPGs tend to be smaller and may cause less discomfort than non-rechargeable ones, but they require regular maintenance and recharging, which can be inconvenient for some patients [21, 30,31,32].

Tolerance to spinal cord stimulation (SCS), where the therapy’s effectiveness diminishes over time, is another concern. This phenomenon may occur, from lead fibrosis, changes in pain perception, and neuroplasticity. The most common reason for “tolerance” with traditional stimulation is probably due to repeated episodes of overstimulation that causes patients to turn down the stimulation to a subtherapeutic pattern. Overstimulation can occur with daily activities, from coughing or deep breathing to ambulation, where the activation of the spinal cord changes dramatically [22].

A noteworthy option in neuromodulation is dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation [5, 33]. This technique targets the dorsal root ganglion, a cluster of nerve cell bodies within the spinal cord, which plays a crucial role in transmitting pain signals. DRG stimulation has shown efficacy in treating focal, neuropathic pain conditions that are otherwise difficult to manage with traditional SCS [5, 22, 34]. For instance, it has successfully treated CRPS and groin pain following hernia repair [35]. DRG stimulation offers several advantages over conventional SCS. It allows for more precise targeting of pain areas, leading to potentially greater pain relief, fewer side effects, and lower variability in stimulation intensity [34, 36]. Moreover, DRG stimulation has shown promising results in patients who have not responded well to traditional SCS, making it a valuable option for those with refractory pain conditionsm [37].

However, despite these benefits, DRG stimulation is not without its challenges. There have been reports of complications such as lead fractures and nerve damage, which can complicate treatment and lead to additional interventions. These risks underscore the importance of careful patient selection and meticulous surgical technique to minimize potential adverse outcomes [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13, 19, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 38].

Advancements and accessibility

Advancements in technology have made SCS more accessible and customizable. Modern devices offer adjustable settings tailored to individual patient’s needs, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction [31]. One of the latest advancements includes cutting-edge stimulation techniques such as closed-loop technology, which addresses maintaining optimal stimulation levels during movements. This technology accounts for the dynamic nature of the epidural space, reducing the risk of under or overstimulation and mitigating tolerance issues [26].

Additionally, the industry is increasingly embracing remote monitoring, which allows for continuous, real-time adjustments and follow-up care, further enhancing the effectiveness and convenience of SCS therapy [6, 39].

Some physicians are concerned with the invasiveness of the procedure [40,41,42]. While SCS involves surgery, it is minimally invasive and much safer compared to many other interventions. The implantation process is typically straightforward, with low risks and quick recovery times. Additionally, trial stimulation periods allow patients to experience the benefits before committing to permanent implantation, reducing the risk of unsuccessful outcomes [43].

Financial concerns also contribute to skepticism [44]. The initial cost of SCS can be high, but it must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Reduced medication dependence, fewer doctor visits, and improved quality of life can save overall costs [45]. Farber et al. [46] also validated the cost-effectiveness of SCS over 10-year post-implantation, despite the relatively high initial cost of implantation. Insurance coverage for SCS has also improved, making it more accessible to a broader patient population [47].

Challenges and opportunities

Despite the robust clinical evidence, safety, and technological advances, it is estimated that only 5% of patients who are candidates for treatment with neuromodulation ever get access to SCS [48]. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews provide robust evidence supporting the functional benefits of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared to conventional medical management or additional spinal surgeries. For instance, a comprehensive meta-analysis reported significant improvements in pain relief and quality of life for SCS patients, with a marked reduction in disability scores such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and enhancements in physical functioning measured by tools like the SF-36 survey. These studies highlight the efficacy of SCS in reducing chronic pain and improving patient mobility and daily functioning [22, 32, 33, 49].

SCS has emerged as a vital tool in addressing the opioid epidemic by providing a non-pharmacological alternative for pain management with both efficacy and safety, including the ability to reduce opioid use in patients with chronic pain with an incidence of major complications of less than 1% [34, 35, 49, 50].

However, SCS is not suitable for all types of pain and should be considered as part of a broader strategy to combat the opioid crisis. This strategy must include other measures to effectively address this complex issue.

Another hurdle is the conservative nature of medical practice [51]. Physicians may be hesitant to recommend SCS due to a lack of familiarity, biasis, or experience with the technology. Increasing awareness and education about the procedure among healthcare providers is essential. As more doctors witness the transformative effects of SCS in their patients, acceptance will likely grow.

Furthermore, there is a shortage of healthcare professionals who can provide appropriate indications for spinal cord stimulation, likely due to insufficient awareness [52]. Patients with chronic and/or neuropathic pain often do not initially seek help from pain medicine specialists but instead consult other specialists (such as orthopedic surgeons, neurologists, physiatrists, or neurosurgeons). Unfortunately, these specialists may lack the knowledge to recommend spinal cord stimulation correctly. As a result, patients may never be offered appropriate therapy, and their treatment may involve fewer practical approaches, potentially compromising long-term outcomes [53].

Patients’ fear of the unknown and reluctance to undergo surgical procedures can also delay the adoption of SCS [54, 55]. Comprehensive patient education and support are vital in addressing these concerns. Success stories and testimonials from those who have regained their lives through SCS can be powerful motivators [56].

The procedure is often reserved to carefully selected patients, with patient selection being crucial, excluding those with substance abuse issues, widespread pain, or psychological problems. For conditions like persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS2), SCS remains a primary long-term solution for pain relief. Clinical studies indicate that SCS can provide significant pain relief, with > 80% of patients experiencing at least a 50% reduction in pain levels with current technologies [24, 25]. The pain relief achieved with SCS typically lasts for several years, with ongoing effectiveness often contingent upon regular follow-up and management [25].

The efficacy of SCS in treating PSPS2 can vary depending on the specific pain phenotype. For instance, patients with PSPS2 characterized by predominant leg pain often report better outcomes compared to those with persistent low back nociceptive pain. Studies suggest that patients with radicular pain or leg pain may experience more substantial relief, while those with more diffuse or nociceptive low back pain may see less pronounced benefits. As such, patient selection and a tailored approach to treatment are crucial for optimizing outcomes with SCS [7, 57]. Additionally, a stimulation trial helps minimize errors [58,59,60].

Over the past decade, the indications for SCS have expanded to include PSPS type 1 [58,59,60]. This type of PSPS refers to chronic lower back pain that persists despite patients undergoing conservative treatments and pain relief procedures without having had prior spine surgery. This condition poses a significant challenge for clinicians, as patients continue to experience disabling pain despite receiving nonsurgical interventions. Moreover, there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal fusion or disc replacement surgeries in managing chronic lower back pain in patients without prior surgery. Given the limited effectiveness of treatments such as physical therapy, medications, injections, and nonsurgical interventions in these cases, there is a growing need for alternative therapies [58,59,60].

Supported by numerous randomized controlled trials (Table 2), SCS offers substantial pain relief, enhances functionality, and prevents unnecessary surgeries, positioning it as an essential tool for the future of chronic pain management [19, 27, 61].

Table 2 RCT studies in the management of persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1
Full size table

In conclusion, SCS offers significant benefits for many patients with chronic pain, including substantial pain relief and a reduction in opioid use. Despite these advantages, SCS has challenges and limitations, such as the need for careful patient selection and variability in treatment outcomes based on pain phenotype. The doubts surrounding SCS stem from legitimate concerns about its long-term efficacy and the need for more comprehensive research to understand its role in pain management better. As the medical community continues to explore and address these issues, it is essential to maintain a balanced perspective. While SCS remains a promising and valuable option in the fight against chronic pain, ongoing scrutiny and refinement of the treatment approach are crucial to maximizing its benefits and minimizing potential drawbacks.

This table outlines the primary indications for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of chronic pain, including key studies supporting each indication. Additionally, it highlights common complications and known limitations of the therapy. For each category, relevant references are provided to indicate the source of clinical evidence. The table serves to summarize the benefits of SCS while addressing the potential complications and limitations associated with its use, supporting a balanced perspective on its efficacy in chronic pain management.

This image illustrates the placement of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system within the human spine. The SCS device includes an implantable pulse generator (IPG) located subcutaneously near the lower back, connected to leads that are positioned along the spinal cord. The leads deliver electrical impulses to the spinal cord, aiming to modulate pain signals and provide relief for chronic pain conditions.

Table 2 summarizes key randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies and conventional medical management (CMM) in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1. The table highlights the companies involved, the waveform technology used, the number of patients, the duration of follow-up, and the responder rates. Notably, all SCS modalities, including DTM, 10 kHz, burst DR, and MM therapy, demonstrated significant responder rates, with values ranging from 80.1 to 88%, indicating their effectiveness in managing this challenging pain condition.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Cohen SP, Vase L, Hooten WM (2021) Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances. Lancet 397(10289):2082–2097. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00393-7. (PMID: 34062143)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, Eldabe S, Meglio M, Molet J et al (2007) Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain 132(1–2):179–188. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.pain.2007.07.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Finnerup NB, Attal N, Haroutounian S, McNicol E, Baron R, Dworkin RH, Gilron I, Haanpää M, Hansson P, Jensen TS, Kamerman PR, Lund K, Moore A, Raja SN, Rice AS, Rowbotham M, Sena E, Siddall P, Smith BH, Wallace M (2015) Pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 14(2):162–73. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70251-0. (Epub 2015 Jan 7. PMID: 25575710; PMCID: PMC4493167)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chou R, Huffman LH (2007) Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 147(7):505–514. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Muller L, Pope J, Verrills P, Petersen E, Kallewaard JW, Gould I, Karantonis DM (2024) First evidence of a biomarker-based dose-response relationship in chronic pain using physiological closed-loop spinal cord stimulation. Reg Anesth Pain Med rapm-2024–105346. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/rapm-2024-105346. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38508591

  6. Guzzi G, Della Torre A, Bruni A, Lavano A, Bosco V, Garofalo E, La Torre D, Longhini F (2024) Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 4(1):29. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44158-024-00167-1. (PMID: 38698460)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Deer TR, Mekhail N, Provenzano D, Pope JE, Krames ES, Leong M et al (2014) The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee. Neuromodulation 17(6):515–550. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.12208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen SP, Bhatia A (2015) Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a review. Anesth Analg 120(3):539–552. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris SA, Malin SA (2017) Long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a review of the literature. Pain Med 18(6):1102–1112. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/pm/pnx036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Deer TR, Pope JE (2013) Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: an overview of the evidence. Curr Pain Headache Rep 17(6):365. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s11916-013-0365-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Deer TR, Levy RM, Kramer JM, Buchser E (2014) Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a review of the evidence and future directions. JAMA 311(2):183–190. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1001/jama.2013.281393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deer TR, Russo MA, Sayed D, Pope JE, Grider JS, Hagedorn JM, Falowski SM, Al-Kaisy A, Slavin KV, Li S, Poree LR, Eldabe S, Meier K, Lamer TJ, Pilitsis JG, De Andrés J, Perruchoud C, Carayannopoulos AG, Moeschler SM, Hadanny A, Lee E, Varshney VP, Desai MJ, Pahapill P, Osborn J, Bojanic S, Antony A, Piedimonte F, Hayek SM, Levy RM (2024) The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: recommendations for the mitigation of complications of neurostimulation. Neuromodulation 27(6):977–1007. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neurom.2024.04.004. (Epub 2024 Jun 13 PMID: 38878054)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sayed D, Deer TR, Hagedorn JM, Sayed A, D’Souza RS, Lam CM, Khatri N, Hussaini Z, Pritzlaff SG, Abdullah NM, Tieppo Francio V, Falowski SM, Ibrahim YM, Malinowski MN, Budwany RR, Strand NH, Sochacki KM, Shah A, Dunn TM, Nasseri M, Lee DW, Kapural L, Bedder MD, Petersen EA, Amirdelfan K, Schatman ME, Grider JS (2024) A systematic guideline by the ASPN workgroup on the evidence, education, and treatment algorithm for painful diabetic neuropathy: SWEET. J Pain Res 13(17):1461–1501. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S451006. (PMID: 38633823; PMCID: PMC11022879)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, Eldabe S, Meglio M, Molet J, Thomson S, O'Callaghan J, Eisenberg E, Milbouw G, Buchser E, Fortini G, Richardson J, North RB (2008) The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery. 63(4):762–70. discussion 770. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1227/01.NEU.0000325731.46702.D9.

  15. North RB, Kidd DH, Petrucci L, Dorsi MJ (2005) Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous with laminectomy electrodes: part II-clinical outcomes. Neurosurgery. 57(5):990–6. discussion 990-6. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1227/01.neu.0000180030.00167.b9. 

  16. Kemler MA, Barendse GA, van Kleef M, de Vet HC, Rijks CP, Furnée CA, van den Wildenberg FA (2000) Spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med. 343(9):618–24. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1056/NEJM200008313430904.

  17. de Vos CC, Meier K, Zaalberg PB, Nijhuis HJ, Duyvendak W, Vesper J, Enggaard TP, Lenders MW (2014) Spinal cord stimulation in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy: a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Pain. 155(11):2426-31. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.pain.2014.08.031.

  18. Kapural L, Patterson DG, Li S, Hatheway J, Hunter C, Rosen S, Fishman M, Gupta M, Sayed D, Christopher A, Burgher A, McJunkin T, Ross EL, Provenzano D, Amirdelfan K (2023) Multiphase Spinal Cord Stimulation in Participants With Chronic Back or Leg Pain: Results of the BENEFIT-02 Randomized Clinical Trial. Neuromodulation. 26(7):1400-1411. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neurom.2023.05.006.

  19. Kallewaard JW, Billet B, Van Paesschen R, Smet I, Mendiola A, Peña I, López P, Carceller J, Tornero C, Zuidema X, Vesper J, Lehmberg J, Laloo W, Cedeño DL, Vallejo R (2024) European randomized controlled trial evaluating differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and conventional medical management in subjects with persistent back pain ineligible for spine surgery: 24-month results. Eur J Pain. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/ejp.2306. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38943239)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mekhail NA, Mathews M, Nageeb F, Guirguis M, Mekhail MN, Cheng J (2011) Retrospective review of 707 cases of spinal cord stimulation: indications and complications. Pain Pract. 11(2):148–53. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.00407.x.

  21. Rauck RL, Loudermilk E, Thomson SJ, Paz-Solis JF, Bojrab L, Noles J, Vesper J, Atallah J, Roth D, Hegarty J, Prud’Homme M, Phillips GM, Smith SG, Ibrahim M, Willoughby CD, Obray JB, Gupta M, Paez J, Berg AP, Harrison NJ, Maino P, Mambalam P, McCarty M, Towlerton G, Love-Jones S, Ahmed S, Lee A, Shah B, Goor-Aryeh I, Russo MA, Varela N, Phelps JB, Cid J, Fernandez T, Pérez-Hernández C, Keehn D, Rosenow JM, Haider N, Parrent AG, Lawrence MM, Georgius P, Demartini L, Mendiola A, Mehta V, Thoma R, Israel AF, Carolis G, Bhatia S, Green M, Villarreal A, Crooks MT, Gwinn RP, Pilitsis JG, Sato H, Vega SM, Hillegass MG, Carnes P, Scherer C, Brill S, Yu J, Brennan JJ, Gatzinsky K, Navani A, Snook LT Jr, Bujedo BM, Andrés Ares J, Murillo A, Trobridge AT, Assil K, Shah J, McLeod C, Buwembo J, Coster O, Miller N, Sanapati M, Mikhael M, Przkora R, Sukenaga N, Raso LJ, Calodney AK, Cáceres Jerez LE, Uchiyama T, Kallewaard JW, Chandler B, Piedimonte F, Candido KD, Weaver TE, Agari T, Holthouse D, Woon R, Patel N, Lechleiter K, Jain R (2023) Long-term safety of spinal cord stimulation systems in a prospective, global registry of patients with chronic pain. Pain Manag 13(2):115–127. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2217/pmt-2022-0091. (Epub 2023 Jan 24 PMID: 36691862)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar K et al (2006) Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and pres ent status, a 22-year experience. Neurosurgery 58(3):481–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. North RB, Ewend MG, Lawton MT, Kidd DH, Piantadosi S (1991) Failed back surgery syndrome: 5-year follow-up after spinal cord stimulator implantation. Neurosurgery. 28(5):692–9.

  24. Bieze M, van Haaps AP, Kapural L, Li S, Ferguson K, de Vries R, Schatman ME, Mijatovic V, Kallewaard JW (2024) Spinal cord stimulation for intractable visceral pain originating from the pelvic and abdominal region: a narrative review on a possible new indication for patients with therapy-resistant pain. J Pain Res 19(17):691–736. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S445616. (PMID: 38405684; PMCID: PMC10887953)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Finnern MT, D’Souza RS, Jin MY, Abd-Elsayed AA (2023) Cervical spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of headache disorders: a systematic review. Neuromodulation 26(7):1309–1318. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neurom.2022.10.060. (Epub 2022 Dec 10 PMID: 36513586)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mekhail NA, Levy RM, Deer TR, Kapural L, Li S, Amirdelfan K, Pope JE, Hunter CW, Rosen SM, Costandi SJ, Falowski SM, Burgher AH, Gilmore CA, Qureshi FA, Staats PS, Scowcroft J, McJunkin T, Carlson J, Kim CK, Yang MI, Stauss T, Petersen EA, Hagedorn JM, Rauck R, Kallewaard JW, Baranidharan G, Taylor RS, Poree L, Brounstein D, Duarte RV, Gmel GE, Gorman R, Gould I, Hanson E, Karantonis DM, Khurram A, Leitner A, Mugan D, Obradovic M, Ouyang Z, Parker J, Single P, Soliday N, EVOKE Study Group (2024) ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 49(5):346–354. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/rapm-2023-104751. (PMID: 37640452; PMCID: PMC11103285)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Deer T, Gilligan C, Falowski S, Desai M, Pilitsis J, Jameson J, Moeschler S, Heros R, Tavel E, Christopher A, Patterson D, Wahezi S, Weisbein J, Antony A, Funk R, Ibrahim M, Lim C, Wilson D, Fishell M, Scarfo K, Dickerson D, Braun E, Buchanan P, Levy RM, Miller N, Duncan J, Xu J, Candido K, Kreiner S, Fahey ME, Yue J (2023) Treatment of refractory low back pain using passive recharge burst in patients without options for corrective surgery: findings and results from the DISTINCT study, a prospective randomized multicenter controlled trial. Neuromodulation 26(7):1387–1399. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neurom.2023.07.009. (Epub 2023 Aug 28. PMID: 37642628; PMCID: PMC10801705.)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Fishman M, Cordner H, Justiz R, Provenzano D, Merrell C, Shah B, Naranjo J, Kim P, Calodney A, Carlson J, Bundschu R, Sanapati M, Mangal V, Vallejo R (2021) Twelve-month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain. Pain Pract 21(8):912–923. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/papr.13066. (Epub 2021 Aug 27. PMID: 34363307; PMCID: PMC9290817)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Al-Kaisy A, Palmisani S, Smith TE, Houghton R (2015) In search of a spinal cord stimulation paradigm that addresses chronic low back pain: the results from the prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, controlled RESTORE study. Pain Med 16(8):1366–1375

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lo Bianco G, Tinnirello A, Papa A, Marchesini M, Day M, Palumbo GJ, Terranova G, Di Dato MT, Thomson SJ, Schatman ME (2023) Interventional pain procedures: a narrative review focusing on safety and complications. Part 2 Interventional procedures for back pain. J Pain Res 16:761–772. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S396215. (PMID: 36925622; PMCID: PMC10010974)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Falowski S, Celii A, Sharan A (2009) Spinal cord stimulation: mechanisms of action, surgical anatomy, and placement techniques. Pain Physician 12(1):35–41

    Google Scholar 

  32. Falowski SM, Tan H, Parks J, Abd-Elsayed A, Raslan A, Pope J (2023) Anticipating and preventing complications in spinal cord stimulator implantation. Expert Rev Med Devices 20(5):365–372. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17434440.2023.2196399. (Epub 2023 Apr 3 PMID: 36974624)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Deer TR, Levy RM, Kramer J et al (2017) Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial. Pain 158(4):669–681. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kriek N, Groeneweg JG, Stronks DL et al (2017) Dorsal root ganglion stimulation for chronic pain: a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Neuromodulation 20(8):895–903. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.12666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kallewaard JW, Edelbroek C, Ter Laan M et al (2020) Long-term effectiveness of dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: a prospective trial. Neuromodulation 23(7):943–950. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.13097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Huygen FJ, Liem L, Nijhuis H et al (2018) Dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: a prospective multicenter study. Pain Pract 18(5):596–605. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/papr.12645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lo Bianco G, Papa A, Gazzerro G, Rispoli M, Tammaro D, Di Dato MT, Vernuccio F, Schatman M (2021) Dorsal root ganglion stimulation for chronic postoperative pain following thoracic surgery: a pilot study. Neuromodulation 24(4):774–778. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.13265. (Epub 2020 Sep 9 PMID: 32909359)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lo Bianco G, Tinnirello A, Papa A, Torrano V, Russo G, Stogicza A, Mercadante S, Cortegiani A, Mazzoleni S, Schatman ME (2023) Interventional pain procedures: a narrative review focusing on safety and complications. Part 1 Injections for spinal pain. J Pain Res 16:1637–1646. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S402798. (PMID: 37223436; PMCID: PMC10202209)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Staats P, Deer TR, Hunter C, Li S, Dickerson D, Petersen E, Kapural L, Durbhakula S, Gilligan C, Slavin KV, Pope J, Amirdelfan K, Poree L, Naidu R, Levy RM (2023) Remote management of spinal cord stimulation devices for chronic pain: expert recommendations on best practices for proper utilization and future considerations. Neuromodulation 26(7):1295–1308. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neurom.2023.07.003. (Epub 2023 Aug 25 PMID: 37632517)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McRoberts P (2019) Perceptions and attitudes toward spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain management: a review. Pain Med 20(4):728–735. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/pm/pny074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim H, Kim Y (2020) Barriers to adoption of spinal cord stimulation: patient and provider perspectives. Neuromodulation 23(4):516–523. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.13023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tsaousi G, Patsiou E (2021) Attitudes towards neurostimulation technologies in pain management: a survey of patient and healthcare provider views. J Pain Res 14:1231–1242. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S312512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Deer TR, Kramer J (2018) The importance of trial stimulation in the management of chronic pain. Pain Med 19(8):1596–1603. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/pm/pny027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. North RB, North RB (2020) Economic burdens of spinal cord stimulation therapy: a comprehensive review. Neuromodulation 23(7):930–937. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.13096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eldabe S, Nevitt S, Bentley A, Mekhail NA, Gilligan C, Billet B, Staats PS, Maden M, Soliday N, Leitner A, Duarte RV (2024) Network meta-analysis and economic evaluation of neurostimulation interventions for chronic non-surgical refractory back pain. Clin J Pain. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001223. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38751011)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Farber SH, Han JL, Elsamadicy AA, Hussaini Q, Yang S, Pagadala P et al (2017) Long-term cost utility of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Physician 20(6):E797

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Deer T, Abd-Elsayed A, Chakravarthy K, Rosenow JM, Falowski S, Petersen E, Pilitsis J, Hunter C, Sayed D, Schatman ME (2023) Serious issues in authorship, design, and conclusions of JAMA Neurology real-world evidence study on spinal cord stimulation outcomes and costs as compared to conventional medical therapy. J Pain Res 26(16):221–224. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S403031. (PMID: 36726855; PMCID: PMC9885768)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. North RB, North RB (2017) Access to spinal cord stimulation: challenges and discrepancies. Neuromodulation 20(6):590–597. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.12691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. ElSaban M, Kleppel DJ, Kubrova E, Martinez Alvarez GA, Hussain N, D’Souza RS (2023) Physical functioning following spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med 48(6):302–311. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/rapm-2022-104295. (PMID: 37080578)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lo Bianco G, Schatman ME (2023) “The Italian job”: how social, family cohesion, and the church have helped spare Italy from a prescription opioid crisis. J Pain Res 28(16):2939–2942. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S435218. (PMID: 37664486; PMCID: PMC10473396)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kumar K, Toth C (2017) Barriers to the adoption of new medical technologies: the role of conservatism in medical practice. J Pain Res 10:847–854. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S129481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. North RB, North RB (2019) Knowledge gaps and training needs in spinal cord stimulation: addressing the shortage of qualified providers. Pain Med 20(5):1004–1011. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/pm/pnz023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Abd-Elsayed A, Abdallah R, Falowski S, Chaiban G, Burkey A, Slavin K, Guirguis M, Raslan AM (2020) Development of an educational curriculum for spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation 23(5):555–561. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.13142. (Epub 2020 Apr 13 PMID: 32282109)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Harris S, Seltzer Z (2016) Psychological factors influencing the adoption of spinal cord stimulation: the role of patient fear and anxiety. J Pain Res 9:689–697. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2147/JPR.S93859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. North RB, North RB (2018) Patient reluctance and barriers to spinal cord stimulation: a review of psychological and social factors. Pain Med 19(8):1582–1590. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/pm/pnx174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Thomson S, Helsen N, Prangnell S, Paroli M, Baranidharan G, Belaïd H, Billet B, Eldabe S, De Carolis G, Demartini L, Gatzinsky K, Kallewaard JW, Winkelmüller M, Huygen F, Stoevelaar H (2022) Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation: the importance of an integrated assessment of clinical and psychosocial factors. Eur J Pain 26(9):1873–1881. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/ejp.2009. (Epub 2022 Aug 2 PMID: 35856311)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Deer TR, Hanes M (2020) Spinal cord stimulation as a long-term solution for persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: clinical evidence and case studies. Neuromodulation 23(1):50–58. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/ner.13055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Thomson S, Huygen F, Prangnell S, De Andrés J, Baranidharan G, Belaïd H, Berry N, Billet B, Cooil J, De Carolis G, Demartini L, Eldabe S, Gatzinsky K, Kallewaard JW, Meier K, Paroli M, Stark A, Winkelmüller M, Stoevelaar H (2020) Appropriate referral and selection of patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation: European consensus recommendations and e-health tool. Eur J Pain 24(6):1169–1181. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/ejp.1562. (Epub 2020 Apr 4. PMID: 32187774; PMCID: PMC7318692)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. van de Minkelis J, Peene L, Cohen SP, Staats P, Al-Kaisy A, Van Boxem K, Kallewaard JW, Van Zundert J (2024) 6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2. Pain Pract. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/papr.13379. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38616347)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Levy RM, Mekhail N, Abd-Elsayed A, Abejón D, Anitescu M, Deer TR, Eldabe S, Goudman L, Kallewaard JW, Moens M, Petersen EA, Pilitsis JG, Pope JE, Poree L, Raslan AM, Russo M, Sayed D, Staats PS, Taylor RS, Thomson S, Verrills P, Duarte RV (2023) Holistic treatment response: an international expert panel definition and criteria for a new paradigm in the assessment of clinical outcomes of spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation 26(5):1015–1022. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neurom.2022.11.011. (Epub 2023 Jan 4 PMID: 36604242)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kapural L, Jameson J, Johnson C, Kloster D, Calodney A, Kosek P, Pilitsis J, Bendel M, Petersen E, Wu C, Cherry T, Lad SP, Yu C, Sayed D, Goree J, Lyons MK, Sack A, Bruce D, Rubenstein F, Province-Azalde R, Caraway D, Patel NP (2022) Treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz: 12-month results of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine 37(2):188–199. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3171/2021.12.SPINE211301. (PMID: 35148512)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the artist Andrea Lino for the drawings.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship, of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anesthesiology and Pain Department, Foundation G. Giglio Cefalù, Palermo, Italy

    Giuliano Lo Bianco

  2. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, The Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK

    Adnan Al-Kaisy

  3. Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy

    Silvia Natoli

  4. Pain Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy

    Silvia Natoli

  5. Division of Chronic Pain, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA

    Alaa Abd-Elsayed

  6. Department of Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Cologne, Germany

    Georgios Matis

  7. Department of Pain Management, AO “Ospedale Dei Colli”, Monaldi Hospital, Naples, Italy

    Alfonso Papa

  8. Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA

    Leonardo Kapural

  9. electroCore, Rockaway, NJ, USA

    Peter Staats

  10. National Spine and Pain Centers, Rockville, MD, USA

    Peter Staats

Authors
  1. Giuliano Lo Bianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adnan Al-Kaisy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Natoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alaa Abd-Elsayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Georgios Matis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alfonso Papa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Leonardo Kapural
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Staats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.L.B. conceived the editorial concept and wrote the main manuscript text. A.A.-K., S.N., A.A.-E., G.M., A.P., L.K., and P.S. contributed by providing expertise, discussing key themes, editing the manuscritp and offering critical insights on spinal cord stimulation and neuromodulation. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Natoli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

G.L.B. reported personal fees from Abbott and Stryker, outside the submitted work. G.M. reports consulting agreements with Boston Scientific. L. K. reports financial interest in Neuros, Nevro, Biotronik, Nalu, Medtronic, Xalud, Saul Therapeutics, Saluda Medical, NeuraLace, Gimer Medical, and Avanos; is a member of the scientific advisory board for Presidio, Saluda Medical, and Biotronik; Paid Speaker for Nevro and Saluda Medical. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work. P. S. reports grants from Saluda, Nalu, AIS Therapeutics, Thermaquil, Biotronik, electroCore and Vertos, outside the scope of this work; royalties from the Averitas-Qutenza Patch, outside the scope of this work; payment or honoraria from Medtronic and SPR Therapeutics, outside the scope of this work; patents for vagus nerve and topical capsaicin products; participation in a Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Board for Nalu and Saluda; a leadership role in the World Institute of Pain, American Society of Pain and Neuroscience, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, and the Florida Academy of Pain Management; and stock options in Saluda, Nalu and electroCore.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Glossary

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS)

A therapy that uses electrical impulses delivered via an implanted device to modulate nerve activity and reduce chronic pain

Dorsal root ganglion (DRG)

A cluster of sensory nerve cell bodies located near the spinal cord that transmits pain signals to the brain

Paresthesia-free waveforms

A type of stimulation that does not produce the tingling sensation (paresthesia) often associated with traditional SCS, enhancing patient comfort

Closed-loop stimulation

A system that automatically adjusts stimulation levels in real time based on the patient’s movements and physiological responses to maintain effective pain control

Persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS)

A condition characterized by chronic pain that persists after spinal surgery or conservative treatment

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)

A chronic pain condition that often affects a limb, typically after an injury or surgery, and is characterized by severe pain and sensitivity

Number needed to treat (NNT)

A statistical measure that indicates the average number of patients who need to be treated to achieve one successful outcome

Electrode migration

A complication where the implanted leads of an SCS device move from their original position, reducing treatment efficacy

Neuroplasticity

The ability of the nervous system to adapt and reorganize itself, which can influence the effectiveness of SCS therapy over time

Opioid crisis

A public health issue arising from widespread misuse of opioid medications, emphasizing the importance of non-opioid pain management options like SCS

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lo Bianco, G., Al-Kaisy, A., Natoli, S. et al. Neuromodulation in chronic pain management: addressing persistent doubts in spinal cord stimulation. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 5, 3 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44158-024-00219-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44158-024-00219-6

Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care

ISSN: 2731-3786

Contact us