Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,683 studies31 sourcesUpdated 39 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Journal of Pain Research

Comparative Effectiveness of Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation and Traditional Spinal Cord Stimulation with or without Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain

  • Boris Cehov1
  • Maria Lynge Rosing1
  • Pia Olesen1
  • Preben Sørensen1
  • Elin Eriksen1
  • Niels Henrik Bruun2
  • Halldór Bjarki Einarsson1
  1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
  2. 2Department of Research Data and Statistics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), with or without subcutaneous peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), is used to manage chronic neuropathic low back pain (LBP) and radicular leg pain (LP). Axial LBP may respond less consistently to traditional SCS. Differential target multiplexed SCS (DTM SCS) was developed from preclinical evidence suggesting modulation of pain-related neuroglial processes.

Objective: To compare 12-month pain outcomes after DTM SCS with those after traditional SCS, with or without PNFS, in patients with intractable chronic LBP and/or LP.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 92 patients treated with DTM SCS or traditional SCS with or without PNFS. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) before treatment and 1, 6, and 12 months after device activation. The primary outcome was the change in LBP and LP intensity through 12 months. Complications were also recorded.

Results: VAS trajectories did not differ significantly between patients treated with DTM SCS and those treated with traditional SCS with or without PNFS. This finding does not establish equivalence, and the heterogeneous comparator group precludes conclusions about DTM SCS versus traditional SCS alone.

Related

  1. Comparative effectiveness of GnRH antagonist, mild stimulation, and PPOS protocols in POSEIDON groups 3 and 4: a retrospective cohort study with entropy balancing
    Haiyue Zhao, Yunping Ni, Aiai Wang +3
    Frontiers in EndocrinologyPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthCrossrefPMC
  2. Effectiveness and Patient Compliance of a Needle-Free Injection System in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in IVF Cycles: A Real-World, Investigator-Initiated, Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Study
    Manish Banker, Manika Khanna, Baiju P Ahammed +2
    CureusPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Comparative outcomes of conventional follitropin delta 15 µg/day versus follitropin alfa 225 IU/day for ovarian stimulation: results from an exploratory post hoc analysis of Spanish participants from the ADAPT-1 randomized controlled trial
    Marta García Sánchez, Andrea Bernabeu, Ana Hernández Cesteros +7
    Frontiers in reproductive healthPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Differential mechanisms of continuous theta burst stimulation and low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic tinnitus: preliminary efficacy dissociation by local focalization vs. network dispersion
    Mengxue Zhang, Li Qin, Enli Jin +7
    Frontiers in neurologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textNeurologyEurope PMCCrossref
  5. Claims-Based Body Mass Index and Obesity Comparative Effectiveness Research—Weighing the Evidence
    Karan R. Chhabra, Babak J. Orandi
    JAMA Network OpenPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{cehov2026comparative,
  title = {{Comparative Effectiveness of Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation and Traditional Spinal Cord Stimulation with or without Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain}},
  author = {Boris Cehov and Maria Lynge Rosing and Pia Olesen and Preben Sørensen and Elin Eriksen and Niels Henrik Bruun and Halldór Bjarki Einarsson},
  journal = {Journal of Pain Research},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.2147/jpr.s628207},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s628207},
  note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Comparative Effectiveness of Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation and Traditional Spinal Cord Stimulation with or without Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain
AU  - Boris Cehov
AU  - Maria Lynge Rosing
AU  - Pia Olesen
AU  - Preben Sørensen
AU  - Elin Eriksen
AU  - Niels Henrik Bruun
AU  - Halldór Bjarki Einarsson
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/30
JO  - Journal of Pain Research
DO  - 10.2147/jpr.s628207
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s628207
AB  - Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), with or without subcutaneous peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), is used to manage chronic neuropathic low back pain (LBP) and radicular leg pain (LP). Axial LBP may respond less consistently to traditional SCS. Differential target multiplexed SCS (DTM SCS) was developed from preclinical evidence suggesting modulation of pain-related neuroglial processes.  Objective: To compare 12-month pain outcomes after DTM SCS with those after traditional SCS, with or without PNFS, in patients with intractable chronic LBP and/or LP.  Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 92 patients treated with DTM SCS or traditional SCS with or without PNFS. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) before treatment and 1, 6, and 12 months after device activation. The primary outcome was the change in LBP and LP intensity through 12 months. Complications were also recorded.  Results: VAS trajectories did not differ significantly between patients treated with DTM SCS and those treated with traditional SCS with or without PNFS. This finding does not establish equivalence, and the heterogeneous comparator group precludes conclusions about DTM SCS versus traditional SCS alone.
SN  - 1178-7090
ER  -