Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulators—A Comprehensive Review Article
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 2 publications
References 58 publications
Long-term Efficacy and Safety of High-frequency Spinal Stimulation for Chronic Pain
Objective: The aim of our meta-analysis was to systematically assess the enduring effectiveness and safety of high-frequency spinal stimulation (HF-SCS) in the management of chronic pain. Methods: We developed a comprehensive literature search strategy to identify clinical trials investigating the efficacy of high-frequency spinal stimulation for chronic pain. The search was conducted in multiple databases, including Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase, covering the period from 2004 to 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria established for this study were applied to screen the eligible literature by carefully reviewing abstracts and, when necessary, examining the full text of selected articles. To assess the quality of the included studies, we utilized the risk of bias assessment tool provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.The PRISMA method was followed for the selection of articles, and the quality of the articles was evaluated using the risk assessment table for bias provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.Meta-analysis of the selected studies was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 16.0. Effect sizes for continuous data were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD), while categorical data were analyzed using relative risks (RR). Results: According to our predefined literature screening criteria, a total of seven English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. The findings from the meta-analysis demonstrated that high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) exhibited superior efficacy in the long-term treatment of chronic pain when compared to the control group (RR = 2.44, 95% CI [1.20, 4.96], P = 0.01). Furthermore, HF-SCS demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean difference MD = 3.77, 95% CI [1.17, 6.38], P = 0.005).However, for pain assessment (standardized mean difference SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.10], P = 0.09), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score (MD = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.88], P = 0.78 for 6 months; MD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.43], P = 0.97 for 12 months), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) score (MD = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.43], P = 0.27 for 6 months; MD = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.48], P = 0.52 for 12 months), and occurrence of adverse effects (odds ratio OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.23, 2.59], P = 0.67) from a statistical point of view, HF-SCS did not show sufficient effect compared with the control group. Not significant enough to consider it. Conclusions: The findings from our comprehensive review and meta-analysis, encompassing research from 2004 to 2023, offer encouraging data about the prolonged efficacy and safety of HF-SCS in chronic pain management. Nonetheless, recognizing the constraints of the existing evidence is crucial. Upcoming clinical trials, meticulously planned and stringent, are essential to bolster the current body of evidence and reach more conclusive findings.
Long-term Efficacy and Safety of High-frequency Spinal Stimulation for Chronic Pain
Objective: The aim of our meta-analysis was to systematically assess the enduring effectiveness and safety of high-frequency spinal stimulation (HF-SCS) in the management of chronic pain. Methods: We developed a comprehensive literature search strategy to identify clinical trials investigating the efficacy of high-frequency spinal stimulation for chronic pain. The search was conducted in multiple databases, including Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase, covering the period from 2004 to 2023. The inclusion and exclusion criteria established for this study were applied to screen the eligible literature by carefully reviewing abstracts and, when necessary, examining the full text of selected articles. To assess the quality of the included studies, we utilized the risk of bias assessment tool provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.The PRISMA method was followed for the selection of articles, and the quality of the articles was evaluated using the risk assessment table for bias provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.Meta-analysis of the selected studies was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 16.0. Effect sizes for continuous data were reported as mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD), while categorical data were analyzed using relative risks (RR). Results: According to our predefined literature screening criteria, a total of seven English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. The findings from the meta-analysis demonstrated that high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) exhibited superior efficacy in the long-term treatment of chronic pain when compared to the control group (RR = 2.44, 95% CI [1.20, 4.96], P = 0.01). Furthermore, HF-SCS demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean difference MD = 3.77, 95% CI [1.17, 6.38], P = 0.005).However, for pain assessment (standardized mean difference SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.10], P = 0.09), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score (MD = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.88], P = 0.78 for 6 months; MD = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.43], P = 0.97 for 12 months), Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) score (MD = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.43], P = 0.27 for 6 months; MD = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.48], P = 0.52 for 12 months), and occurrence of adverse effects (odds ratio OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.23, 2.59], P = 0.67) from a statistical point of view, HF-SCS did not show sufficient effect compared with the control group. Not significant enough to consider it. Conclusions: The findings from our comprehensive review and meta-analysis, encompassing research from 2004 to 2023, offer encouraging data about the prolonged efficacy and safety of HF-SCS in chronic pain management. Nonetheless, recognizing the constraints of the existing evidence is crucial. Upcoming clinical trials, meticulously planned and stringent, are essential to bolster the current body of evidence and reach more conclusive findings.
Biofilm-mediated antibiotic tolerance in Staphylococcus aureus from spinal cord stimulation device-related infections
Staphylococcus aureus is a predominant cause of infections in individuals with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices. Biofilm formation complicates these infections, commonly requiring both surgical and antibiotic treatments. This study explored the biofilm matrix composition and antimicrobial susceptibility of planktonic and biofilm-growing S. aureus isolates from individuals with SCS-related infections. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) examined genotypes, virulome, resistome, and the pan-genome structure. The study also analyzed biofilm matrix composition, early surface adhesion, hemolytic activity, and antibiotic-susceptibility testing. WGS revealed genetic diversity among isolates. One isolate, though oxacillin susceptible, contained the mec A gene. The median number of virulence factor genes per isolate was 58. All isolates harbored the biofilm-related ica A/D genes. When assessing phenotypic characteristics, all strains demonstrated the ability to form biofilms in vitro . The antimicrobial susceptibility profile indicated that oxacillin, rifampin, and teicoplanin showed the highest efficacy against S. aureus biofilm. Conversely, high biofilm tolerance was observed for vancomycin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and levofloxacin. These findings suggest that S. aureus isolates are highly virulent and produce robust biofilms. In cases of suspected biofilm infections caused by S. aureus , vancomycin should not be the primary choice due to its low activity against biofilm. Instead, oxacillin, rifampin, and teicoplanin appear to be more effective options to manage SCS infections. IMPORTANCE SCS devices are increasingly used to manage chronic pain, but infections associated with these devices, particularly those caused by Staphylococcus aureus , present significant clinical challenges. These infections are often complicated by biofilm formation, which protects bacteria from immune responses and antibiotic treatments, making them difficult to eradicate. Understanding the genetic diversity, virulence, and biofilm characteristics of S. aureus isolates from SCS infections is critical to improving treatment strategies. Our study highlights the need to reconsider commonly used antibiotics like vancomycin, which shows reduced activity against biofilm-growing cells. Identifying more effective alternatives, such as oxacillin, rifampin, and teicoplanin, provides valuable insight for clinicians when managing biofilm-related S. aureus infections in patients with SCS implants. This research contributes to the growing evidence that biofilm formation is crucial in treating device-related infections, emphasizing the importance of tailoring antimicrobial strategies to the biofilm phenotype.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
