Aug 2026· Frontiers in Neurology· Vol 17· 0 citations· 34 references
Medicine
TL;DR
Its role is comparatively well supported in selected chronic neuropathic pain populations, particularly chronic back and leg pain after spinal surgery and painful diabetic neuropathy, and applications in diabetic foot complications, spinal cord injury, and disorders of consciousness are supported mainly by small, heterogeneous, or uncontrolled studies.
Abstract
Introduction Invasive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used in selected patients with refractory chronic neuropathic pain and has also been explored in spinal cord injury, disorders of consciousness, and Parkinson’s disease. However, the strength of evidence differs substantially across indications. This review summarizes the current clinical applications of invasive SCS and distinguishes relatively established pain indications from emerging neurological applications. Methods We conducted a structured search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Wanfang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The search was supplemented by reference tracking for landmark studies and a targeted update of relevant publications from 2024 to 2026. Results Randomized evidence is concentrated in chronic pain populations. Conventional SCS has shown benefit in selected patients with failed back surgery syndrome, while 10-kHz SCS produced greater pain reduction than conventional low-frequency stimulation in patients with chronic back and leg pain. Burst stimulation was noninferior to tonic stimulation in the SUNBURST trial and was preferred by most participants. Randomized evidence also supports 10-kHz SCS in refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for complex regional pain syndrome suggests short- to intermediate-term pain relief, although long-term benefit remains uncertain. By contrast, applications in diabetic foot complications, spinal cord injury, and disorders of consciousness are supported mainly by small, heterogeneous, or uncontrolled studies. Recent blinded trials have not demonstrated a clear benefit of SCS for Parkinsonian gait impairment. Discussion The clinical evidence supporting invasive SCS varies considerably across neurological indications. Its role is comparatively well supported in selected chronic neuropathic pain populations, particularly chronic back and leg pain after spinal surgery and painful diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for non-pain neurological disorders remains limited, and these applications should remain investigational until further controlled studies clarify patient selection, stimulation parameters, durability of response, and safety.
Future progress in SCS will likely depend on artificial intelligence, remote monitoring, biomarker-guided programming, and integration with multidisciplinary chronic pain care.
Nafay Abdul, Milan Patel, Rohit Aiyer et al.· Journal of Clinical Medicine· 0 citations
VC-SCS represents a promising investigational approach for pain syndromes refractory to traditional dorsal column stimulation, and should focus on refining techniques and addressing critical knowledge gaps regarding patient selection and the durability of outcomes.
Behnum A. Habibi, Chong H. Kim, G. V. Van Acker· American Journal of Physical...· 0 citations
Current evidence is insufficient to support the definitive efficacy of tSCS in individuals with SCI, and the findings suggest that tSCS may have beneficial effects on upper limb motor function as well as balance and postural control.
Jingjing Liu, Yin-Xu Wang, Xin Chen et al.· Journal of NeuroEngineering...· 0 citations
A focused narrative review synthesizes the available clinical evidence, technical considerations, and mechanistic hypotheses specifically pertaining to cervical HF-SCS for refractory chronic migraine to suggest that cervical HF-SCS may reduce monthly migraine days, facilitate conversion from chronic to episodic migrain...
Paolo Martelletti, Claudio Tana· Expert Review of Neurotherap...· 0 citations
Efficacy and safety of burst DBS appear to be comparable to cDBS, with potential benefits such as post-stimulation effects, however, the risk of bias, variability in stimulation settings, inconsistent terminology, and other methodological considerations limit the interpretation of previous research.
Martijn Hendriks, Matej Lokar, H. Arnts et al.· Journal of Parkinson's Disea...· 0 citations
This review catalogs recent conceptual and technological developments contributing to the emergence of brain-spine interfaces and suggests they may have potential to improve the quality of life for SCI patients.
Vijay Sivan, Zahin Alam, H. Polavarapu et al.· Neurosurgical review· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.