Paresthesia-Based Versus High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Retrospective, Real-World, Single-Center...

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a common treatment modality for chronic pain of various etiologies. Over the past two decades, significant technological evolution has occurred in the SCS space, and this includes high-frequency (10 kHz) stimulation. Level I evidence exists reporting superiority of 10 kHz SCS over traditional SCS, however, conflicting reports have been published. The primary objective was to report site-collected real-world patient reported percentage improvement in pain scale (PR-PIPS) with traditional SCS and 10 kHz SCS from a single, academic medical center.

This study was a single-center retrospective review to determine PR-PIPS of traditional SCS and 10 kHz SCS in those patients implanted for at least 12 months. Data were collected by two independent physicians not involved with the implant surgery to minimize bias in the data collection process. PR-PIPS and other clinical variables were abstracted either via chart review or via phone call for patients who were at least 12 months post-implant at the last clinical follow-up.

A total of 163 implanted patients (traditional stimulation n = 85; high-frequency stimulation n = 78) were identified. Twenty-two explants (traditional stimulation n = 10; high-frequency stimulation n = 12) were performed (13.5%). Seventy-five total remaining SCS implants utilizing traditional stimulation and 66 total remaining SCS implants utilizing high-frequency stimulation were included. There was no difference in PR-PIPS between traditional stimulation (50.6% ± 30.1%) and high-frequency stimulation (47.6% ± 31.5%) in the adjusted linear regression model in a variety of implant indications (p = 0.399). There was no difference in frequency of patient categorization into various thresholds of percentage pain relief based on type of stimulation. The most common reasons for explant were loss of efficacy (50.0%) and infection (40.0%) in the traditional cohort, and loss of efficacy (58.3%) in the high-frequency cohort.

This study adds further evidence to the published literature that successful long-term results can be achieved with SCS. Our retrospective analysis did not find a statistically significant difference in PR-PIPS between traditional stimulation and high-frequency stimulation in a variety of indications over an average follow-up of nearly two years. Notably, there were statistically significant differences in treatment indications and primary sites of pain between the two patient cohorts, and this should be considered when interpreting the results.