Spinal cord stimulation: a real-world data analysis on outcomes and differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable implantable pulse generators

Objective In this analysis, we examined differences between rechargeable and non-rechargeable spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices in patients with pain.Methods We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal claims data analysis using a German research database comprising 5 million statutory insured patients (2012–2017). Outcomes of demographics, patient pathways, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with initial SCS were collected.Results Of 150 patients in the database, 73 (49%) received a rechargeable device and 77 (51%) a non-rechargeable device. The average age was 62.5 years (51% female and 49% male patients). A significant decrease over a 3-year follow-up was observed in analgesic prescriptions (−18%), number of patient visits to a physician, and number of patients who were hospitalized. HCRU-related figures for patients with non-rechargeable neurostimulators increased in the last follow-up year whereas the group receiving rechargeable neurostimulators showed a steady decrease.Conclusions SCS seems to be an effective way for patients with chronic pain to decrease pain and improve quality of life. Rechargeable devices seem to be superior to non-rechargeable devices owing to greater longevity and were found to be associated with continuous reduction of pain diagnoses, hospitalization, physician visits, and use of pain medication in our study.