Journal
NEUROMODULATION
Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 125-141Publisher
WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ner.12035
Keywords
Cost neutrality; efficacy; fiscal neutrality; pain treatment continuum; S; A; F; E; principles; safety; spinal cord stimulation
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), by virtue of its historically described up-front costs and level of invasiveness, has been relegated by several complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) treatment algorithms to a therapy of last resort. Newer information regarding safety, cost, and efficacy leads us to believe that SCS for the treatment of CRPS should be implemented earlier in a treatment algorithm using a more comprehensive approach. Methods We reviewed the literature on pain care algorithmic thinking and applied the safety, appropriateness, fiscal or cost neutrality, and efficacy (S.A.F.E.) principles to establish an appropriate position for SCS in an algorithm of pain care. Results and Conclusion Based on literature-contingent considerations of safety, efficacy, cost efficacy, and cost neutrality, we conclude that SCS should not be considered a therapy of last resort for CRPS but rather should be applied earlier (e.g., three months) as soon as more conservative therapies have failed.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available