Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Medical Management for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Importance: Chronic back and lower extremity pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) aims to improve symptoms and quality of life.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of SCS therapies compared with conventional medical management (CMM).

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to September 2, 2022.

Study selection: Selected studies were randomized clinical trials comparing SCS therapies with sham (placebo) and/or CMM or standard treatments for adults with chronic back or leg pain who had not previously used SCS.

Data extraction and synthesis: Evidence synthesis estimated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) and their associated credible intervals (CrI) through bayesian network meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for network meta-analyses was followed.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were pain-related end points, including pain intensity (measured by visual analog scale) and proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief (responder rate) in the back or leg. Quality of life (measured by EQ-5D index score) and functional disability (measured by the Oswestry Disability Index score) were also considered.

Results: A total of 13 studies of 1561 patients were included in the network meta-analysis comparing conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM across the 6 outcomes of interest at the 6-month follow-up. Both conventional and novel SCS therapies were associated with superior efficacy compared with CMM in responder rates in back (conventional SCS: OR, 3.00; 95% CrI, 1.49 to 6.72; novel SCS: OR, 8.76; 95% CrI, 3.84 to 22.31), pain intensity in back (conventional SCS: MD, -1.17; 95% CrI, -1.64 to -0.70; novel SCS: MD, -2.34; 95% CrI, -2.96 to -1.73), pain intensity in leg (conventional SCS: MD, -2.89; 95% CrI, -4.03 to -1.81; novel SCS: MD, -4.01; 95% CrI, -5.31 to -2.75), and EQ-5D index score (conventional SCS: MD, 0.15; 95% CrI, 0.09 to 0.21; novel SCS: MD, 0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13 to 0.21). For functional disability, conventional SCS was superior to CMM (MD, -7.10; 95% CrI, -10.91 to -3.36). No statistically significant differences were observed for other comparisons.

Conclusions and relevance: This systematic review and network meta-analysis found that SCS therapies for treatment of chronic pain in back and/or lower extremities were associated with greater improvements in pain compared with CMM. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management.