pain relief of ≥50% during daytime and/or night-time and/or peak pain during follow-up. After 12 months, 73% showed ≥50% pain relief, which is similar to results from earlier studies. 3 -5 Another long-term study 3 reported a success rate at 24 months of 75%, compared with 55% in our study population. After 36 months, 64% of the patients in our study reported pain relief. PGIC for pain revealed improvement in pain in 73%, 27%, and 36% of the patients at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Overall success rates of SCS on pain relief were 91% at 12 months, 55% at 24 months, and 64% at 36 months.An improvement in QoL was seen in 64% of the patients at 12 months, 55% at 24 months, and 64% at 36 months. The baseline values of the EQ-5D utility scores [median 0.35 (interquartile range: 0.06-0.68)] (Fig. 1) were lower than previously described in PDPN 1 and lower compared with two general population-based samples in the USA with mean utility scores of 0.87 11 and 0.91. 12 In two patients, a new pulse generator was implanted during the follow-up period. Owing to loss of benefit of SCS in two other patients, the SCS system was removed 29 and 34 months after implantation, respectively. No serious adverse events, infections, or wound breakdown occurred during the study.In conclusion, a sustained effect of SCS on pain and QoL is noted in PDPN patients. This makes SCS an acceptable treatment modality for those patients who do not respond to conventional medical treatment.

No abstract