Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic neuropathic pain in the lower limbs. Upper limb pain comprises a significant proportion of neuropathic pain patients, but is often difficult to target specifically and consistently with paresthesias. We hypothesized that the use of dorsal nerve root stimulation (DNRS), as an option along with SCS, would help us better relieve pain in these patients. Methods: All 35 patients trialed with spinal stimulation for upper limb pain between July 1, 2011, and October 31, 2013, were included. We performed permanent implantation in 23/35 patients based on a visual analogue scale pain score decrease of ≥50% during trial stimulation. Results: Both the SCS and DNRS groups had significant improvements in average visual analogue scale pain scores at 12 months compared with baseline, and the majority of patients in both groups obtained ≥50% pain relief. The majority of patients in both groups were able to reduce their opioid use, and on average had improvements in Short Form-36 quality of life scores. Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions: Treatment with SCS or DNRS provides meaningful long-term relief of chronic neuropathic pain in the upper limbs.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), relative to nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM), for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).

Methods: A decision tree and Markov model were developed to synthesize evidence on both health-care costs and outcomes for patients with FBSS. Outcome data of SCS and CMM were sourced from 2-year follow-up data of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment effects were measured as levels of pain relief. Short- and long-term health-care costs were obtained from a detailed Canadian costing study in FBSS patients. Results are presented as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and expressed in 2003 Euros. Costs were discounted at 6 percent and outcomes at 1.5 percent.

Results: Over the lifetime of the patient, SCS was dominant (i.e., SCS is cost-saving and gives more health gain relative to CMM); a finding that was robust across sensitivity analyses. At a 2-year time horizon, SCS gave more health gain but at an increased cost relative to CMM. Given the uncertainty in effectiveness and cost parameters, the 2-year cost-effectiveness of SCS ranged from €30,370 in the base case to €63,511 in the worst-case scenario.

Conclusions: SCS was found to be both more effective and less costly than CMM, over the lifetime of a patient. In the short-term, although SCS is potentially cost-effective, the model results are highly sensitive to the choice of input parameters. Further empirical data are required to improve the precision in the estimation of short-term cost-effectiveness.