Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Upper and Lower Extremity Neuropathic Pain due to Lyme Disease

Background. Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia, a bacterium transmitted by the bite of a deer tick. A slow developing encephalopathy or an axonal polyneuropathy with distal paresthesia and spinal or radicular pain rarely occurs and can be hard to treat. Materials and Methods. We report here the case of a 44‐year‐old woman with four‐limb, intolerable, neuropathic pain as sequelae to Lyme disease, which was resistant to conservative measures and was treated successfully with concurrent, thoracic, and cervical percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Results. After 18 months of therapy and follow‐up, this patient's analgesia, as a result of SCS, continues to be excellent, with almost complete subjective pain relief and cessation of adjuvant analgesic medication. Conclusions. SCS may be efficacious for the treatment of neuropathic pain due to Lyme disease.     

Treatment of Chronic Chest Wall Pain in a Patient With Loeys-Dietz Syndrome Using Spinal Cord Stimulation

Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used with increased frequency for the treatment of intractable pain including chronic chest pain. Methods: The patient with a history of Loeys‐Dietz syndrome who underwent repair of pectus excavatum with subsequent chronic chest wall pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous epidural placement of two temporary eight‐electrode leads placed at the level of T3‐T4‐T5. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days, the patient was implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable generator four weeks later and reported sustained pain relief at 12‐month follow‐up visit. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with Loeys‐Dietz syndrome who underwent repair of pectus excavatum with subsequent chronic chest wall pain who have failed conservative treatment. SCS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and more invasive techniques.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation Reverses Pain and Diarrheal Episodes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Case Report

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder, characterized by abdominal pain, altered bowel habit (diarrhea and/or constipation), and bloating in the absence of demonstrable organic pathology. It is the most common GI disorder seen in primary care and gastroenterology practices. Conservative therapies for IBS are directed at both pain and correction of altered GI motility. A small proportion of patients with IBS have severe or refractory symptoms and report constant pain. IBS is no longer considered solely a disorder of motility, but rather its clinical expression is viewed as dysregulation of CNS‐enteric function. Symptoms of IBS cannot be explained entirely by changes in motility alone and may also arise from complex feedback and feed–forward interactions between supraspinal circuits, the spinal cord, and the periphery, in effect, a neuropathic process, that might be amenable to neuromodulation, that is, spinal cord stimulation. We present here a single case report of a patient with IBS who responded positively to SCS after failing all conservative therapies to alleviate or manage her abdominal pain and diarrheal episodes. Our discussion is focused on the reasons why SCS might work in patients with IBS.     

Successful Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Thoracic Radiculitis Following Brown-Sequard Syndrome

Objective: The objective of this study is to present a novel approach to the treatment of thoracic radiculitis following Brown‐Sequard syndrome with peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). Furthermore, we endeavor to discuss the role of PNFS in the management of refractory neuropathic pain conditions including post‐traumatic and post‐surgical neuropathy particularly with regards to the post‐surgical spine. Materials and Methods: Presented is a 57‐year‐old man with history of thoracic microdiscectomy resulting in Brown‐Sequard syndrome presented with chronic post‐operative thoracic radicular pain radiating to the abdomen, refractory to conservative management. The patient underwent three intercostal nerve blocks from T7 to T9 with transient symptomatic relief. The patient's options were limited to chemomodulation, neuromodulation, or selective intercostal nerve surgical neurectomy. He subsequently underwent a PNFS trial and reported >75% pain reduction. Permanent percutaneous PNFS electrodes were implanted subcutaneously over the right T7 and T9 intercostal nerves and replicated the trial results. Results: Neuromodulation produced pain relief with >90% improvement in pain compared with baseline both during the trial and following permanent implantation of the PNFS system. Conclusion: Chronic radicular pain may be difficult to manage in the post‐surgical patient and often requires the use of multiple therapeutic modalities. In this case, we successfully utilized PNFS as it demonstrated greater technical feasibility when compared with dorsal column stimulation and repeat surgery; therefore, it may be considered for the management of post‐surgical neuropathy. Further controlled studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of PNFS as a treatment option.     

Treatment of Multifocal Pain with Spinal Cord Stimulation

Introduction: We report a retrospective case study of combined treatment of cancer‐related pain and chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) with one spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system. Methods: The patient underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of two temporary eight‐electrode leads (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) placed at the level of T8‐T9‐T10 and T5‐T6‐T7. Results: After successful trial, he was implanted with permanent leads and generator, reporting sustained pain relief at 12‐month follow‐up visit. Discussion: SCS is a trialable, reversible, and interactive therapy permitting patients to control the level of stimulation they feel based on their degree of pain. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment for select patients with cancer‐related chest wall pain and pain related to PLS who have failed conservative treatment.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I of Less Than 12‐Month Duration

Introduction: Complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS‐1) has a 31% probability of becoming chronic. The early use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been recommended as a strategy to prevent chronicity and functional impairment. Methods: In a prospective study, we treated 74 CRPS‐1 patients with a mean disease duration of 17 weeks with standard therapy consisting of physical therapy, topical dimethyl sulfoxide, analgesics, transcutaneous stimulation, and sympathetic blockade. Patients who did not respond to standard therapy were offered a treatment with SCS. In these patients, we investigated the impact on pain, quality of life, and function. Results: Out of these 74 patients treated with standard therapy, six patients were included for early SCS treatment. The overall mean pain relief after one year was 35%. The mental component of the Short Form 36 improved; however, there was no effect on the physical component. None of the SCS treated patients showed a clear improvement in functional outcome. Discussion: We conclude that the feasibility of performing a randomized controlled trial on early SCS therapy in CRPS‐1 is low because of the good disease improvement with standard therapy in the first year after onset. This study raises questions about the need to use SCS early in the course of CRPS‐1 because of the probable lack of additional benefit compared with SCS in chronic CRPS‐1.     

Electrophysiologic Monitoring for Placement of Laminectomy Leads for Spinal Cord Stimulation Under General Anesthesia

Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a valid option for intractable neuropathic pain syndromes, yet some patients cannot undergo the standard awake procedure. Our retrospective study chronicles laminectomy‐electrode placement for SCS under general anesthesia and use of compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) to guide placement in the absence of patient verbal feedback. Methods: After nonsurgical measures proved ineffective for relief of neuropathic pain, 8 men and 11 women underwent SCS lead placement under general rather than local anesthesia because of deafness, language barriers, lidocaine allergy, or extensive scar tissue. A midline thoracic laminectomy was performed, and paddle SCS leads were placed. CMAPs of the rectus abdominis, quadriceps, gastrocnemius, anterior tibialis, abductor hallicus, and intercostal muscles were analyzed. Final lead placement was determined by the right‐to‐left symmetry of the CMAPs in conjunction with fluoroscopic imaging. Stimulation coverage was evaluated postoperatively. Results: Inconsistencies were found in lower‐extremity CMAPs in the first two procedures. Thereafter, intercostal and rectus abdominis muscle CMAPs obtained in the remaining 17 procedures were consistent, more predictive of final results. Immediately postoperatively, 16 (84.2%) of 19 patients had adequate stimulation coverage and good pain relief with appropriate programming. Of three (15.8%) patients with minimal or no short‐term pain relief, lack of response was not attributable to inadequate distribution of stimulation. Conclusions: With electrophysiologic monitoring and fluoroscopy guidance, placement of SCS laminectomy leads in select patients under general anesthesia may result in appropriate stimulation coverage and pain relief in most.     

Multiple Lead Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain: A Comparative Study with Intrathecal Opioid Drug Delivery

The objective of this paper is to assess the outcome of implanted multiple thoracolumbar lead spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in mechanical back pain without prior spinal surgery. These results are compared with intrathecal opioid drug delivery (ITDD). An anonymous third party patient questionnaire study of pain relief, function and psychosocial quality of life measures (recorded on 11‐point numerical rating scales) for 12 patients with SCS and 13 with ITDD was used. Pain was significantly reduced with multiple lead SCS from a median of 9.0–6.5 (p < 0.01) and with ITDD from a median of 8.5–5.5 (p < 0.01). There was a trend towards greater reduction in pain in the ITDD group compared with the SCS group (pain differences 4.5 and 2.6, respectively) but this did not reach statistical significance. The majority of psychosocial quality of life measures were significantly more improved in the ITDD group compared with the SCS group (p < 0.05). We conclude that multiple‐lead SCS improves mechanical back pain in patients unresponsive to more conservative measures. However, ITDD provides significantly more improved quality of life measures, with a trend towards greater pain reduction than SCS.     

A Unique Approach to Neurostimulation in Patients With Previous Two‐Segment Spine Surgery and Obstruction of Epidural Access for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Case Series

Introduction: Patients with extensive surgery in the lumbar and thoracic spine are often not considered for neurostimulation due to the inability to perform a conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial. We are presenting six such patients in which spinal‐peripheral neurostimulation (SPN) was used via a caudal approach. Methods: Six patients with intractable low back and leg pain following extensive lumbar and thoracic surgeries, up to at least the T10 level, underwent a stimulation trial with one caudal lead and one subcutaneous lead in order to achieve SPN. Results: In five cases, the trial was successful with coverage of the pain area and at least satisfactory pain relief. All six patients were implanted with a paddle lead(s) and a subcutaneous lead using SPN with good pain control. Conclusion: SPN with a caudal lead appears to be a viable option for SCS trial in patients with no possibilities for conventional trial lead placement.     

Anterograde Revision of Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulator Paddle Electrode: A Case Report

Objectives: To illustrate a new surgical revision strategy for malfunctioning spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paddle electrodes. Background: SCS is a treatment for chronic neuropathic pain that delivers therapeutic doses of electric current to the dorsal columns resulting in dermatomal paresthesia and pain reduction. Reasons for SCS failure include hardware malfunction or breakage and medical complications. Case Report: A 34‐year‐old woman presented with a two‐year history of intractable pain in the left upper extremity and thoracic region which was previously controlled by SCS. Imaging demonstrated breakage of the cervical electrode wire that had been advanced in the caudal direction from the C1 spinal level. Revision of the broken electrode was performed by hemilaminectomy of C3‐C4 and the replacement electrode was advanced in the cephalad direction. Results: Ideal and exact paresthesia pattern was confirmed intraoperatively and the patient maintained successful pain reduction at five‐year follow‐up. Conclusion: Advancing SCS electrodes into the upper cervical spine in the cephalad direction, using the previously formed scar capsule, offers an alternate strategy for revision of malfunctioning SCS paddle electrodes.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Visceral Pain From Chronic Pancreatitis

Background and Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may reduce pain scores and improve function in patients with various chronic abdominal pain syndromes including chronic pancreatitis. Here described is a large clinical experience in SCS for severe chronic pancreatitis. Methods: SCS was trialed in 30 patients with chronic pancreatitis. SCS trials lasted 7–14 days (median 9 days). SCS lead tips were mostly positioned at the T5 (N= 10) or T6 (N= 10) vertebral level. Results: Twenty‐four patients (80%) reported at least 50% pain relief on completion of the trial. Among these, pre‐trial visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores averaged 8 ± 1.6 (standard deviation) and opioid use averaged 165 ± 120 mg morphine sulfate equivalents. During the trial, VAS pain scores decreased to 3.67 ± 2 cm (p < 0.001, Mann–Whitney Rank Sum Test) and opioid use decreased to 105 ± 101 mg morphine equivalent a day. Six patients failed the trial; one was lost to follow‐up; in three patients after the implantation, the system had to be removed due to infection or lead migration; and 20 were followed for the whole year. For 20 patients followed for the whole year, VAS pain scores remained low (3.6 ± 2 cm; p < 0.001) at one year, as did opioid use (48.6 ± 58 mg morphine equivalents). Conclusions: SCS may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with severe visceral pain from chronic pancreatitis. Prospective trial is warranted.     

Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation with a Multiple Electrode Paddle Lead Is Effective in Treating Intractable Low Back Pain

The objective of this paper is to examine the outcomes of patients with intractable low‐back pain treated with epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) utilizing paddle electrodes and a radio frequency (RF) stimulator. A multicenter prospective study was performed to collect data from patients suffering from chronic low‐back pain. The study was designed to collect data from 60 patients at four centers and examine their outcomes at, or up to two years post implantation. Patients' participation included written responses to a series of preoperative questionnaires that were designed to collect previous surgical history information, leg and low back pain characteristics, and routine demographic information. Outcome measurements included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), and a patient satisfaction rating scale. Data were collected at each site during patient visits or by mail, at approximately six months, 12 months, and 24 months. A total of 44 patients have been implanted with a SCS system at the time of this writing. Follow‐up data were available for 41 patients. Preoperatively, all patients reported more than 50% of their pain in the low back. All patients had pain in both their backs and legs. All patients showed a reported mean decrease in their 10‐point VAS scores compared to baseline. The majority of patients reported fair to excellent pain relief in both the low back and legs. At six months 91.6% of the patients reported fair to excellent relief in the legs and 82.7% of the patients reported fair to excellent relief in the low back. At one year 88.2% of the patients reported fair to excellent relief in the legs and 68.8% of the patients reported fair to excellent relief in the low back. Significant improvement in function and quality of life was found at both the six‐month and one‐year follow‐ups using the Oswestry and SIP, respectively. The majority of patients reported that the procedure was worthwhile (92% at six months, 88% at one year). No patient indicated that the procedure was not worthwhile. We conclude that SCS proved beneficial at one year for the treatment of patients with chronic low back and leg pain.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain Management in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Case Report

Introduction. The classic presentation of ankylosing spondylitis not only impairs spinal mobility but also imposes functional limitations, and fatigue is common. Methods. We report here the outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the case of a 47‐year‐old man with low back and hip/thigh pain due to ankylosing spondylitis, with failed responses to conservative therapies aimed at treating this pain. Results. Spinal cord stimulation induced axial low back and bilateral hip paresthesia resulting in complete subjective pain relief, cessation of analgesic medications, reduced fatigue, and improved sleep patterns. SCS also resulted in improved socioeconomic outcomes with a return to work. Conclusions. With further research in patients with broader presentations of the disease, SCS may prove efficacious in suppressing intractable pain symptoms due to ankylosing spondylitis, thus improving quality of life measures.     

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation in the Treatment of Postlaminectomy Syndrome after Multilevel Spinal Surgeries

Introduction: Chronic low back pain in patients with postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) is challenging to treat, especially for patients who have undergone multilevel surgical procedures. Despite conservative therapy and available interventional pain procedures including spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and intrathecal therapies, patients may continue with intractable low back pain. Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) may represent an effective alternative treatment option for these patients when conventional treatments do not provide adequate relief of intractable low back pain. Methods: Eighteen patients underwent an uneventful PNFS trial with percutaneous placement of four temporary quadripolar leads (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) placed subcutaneously over the lumbar or thoraco‐lumbar area. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days, temporary leads were removed. The patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable or non‐rechargeable generator two to four weeks after temporary lead removal. All patients reported sustained pain relief 12 months after implantation. Discussion: PNFS with use of four vertically orientated leads provides an effective treatment option for patients with PLS after multilevel surgical procedures with intractable low back pain who have failed conservative treatment. PNFS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and interventional treatments including SCS and intrathecal therapy. Conclusion: PNFS may be more effective in treating intractable low back pain than SCS in patients with PLS after multilevel spinal surgeries.     

Successful Treatment of Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth Chronic Pain with Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Case Study

Objectives: Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth (CMT) disease is one of the most common hereditary neuropathies affecting one in 2500 people in the United States. CMT disease is associated with moderate to severe chronic extremity pain. We present the case of a young man with chronic intractable lower extremity pain associated with CMT disease treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Materials and Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board‐approved case study involving a 37‐year‐old man diagnosed with CMT disease with pain of more than 20 years. He was implanted with an SCS device and patient pain and quality of life was assessed one and six months later using the SF‐McGill Pain Questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Pain Disability Index, and SF‐36. Baseline measures were obtained retrospectively. Qualitative data were collected from the medical record. Results: SCS was effective in decreasing pain, improving quality of life and reducing medication consumption at both one and six months post‐implant. In addition, the patient was satisfied with SCS treatment. Conclusion: SCS produced favorable results in a patient with CMT and should be considered a treatment option for pain resulting from this condition.     

A New and Alternative Leads Positioning for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Treatment: Paraforaminal Stimulation

We present a case of a female patient suffering from type I complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) who developed “mirror imaging” of her CRPS and was successfully treated with dual spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the paraforaminal epidural space. This patient initially had unilateral pain that was unsuccessfully treated with midline SCS and single‐lead lateral epidural lead placement “paraforaminally.” One year later, because we believed that paraforaminal stimulation would preferentially stimulate primary sensitized afferents innervating the painful area, we reperformed SCS with two leads positioned laterally and paraforaminally close to the roots within the epidural space. After repositioning and after 1 year of paraforaminal stimulation, there was significant improvement in the patient's symptoms, resolving all unilateral and “mirrored” symptoms. We conclude that paraforaminal stimulation may be a valid therapeutic option for the treatment of CRPS.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation as Alternative Treatment for Chronic Post‐Herniorrhaphy Pain

Objective: Our goal was to determine the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for patients with intractable post‐herniorrhaphy pain which conventional treatment failed to ameliorate. Procedure: The patients underwent an uneventful spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial with percutaneous placement of two eight‐electrode epidural leads (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN, USA) to level T7‐T8‐T9. Results: Upon experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days during the trial, the patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable or non‐rechargeable generators two to four weeks later and reported sustained pain relief during following 12 months after implantation. Conclusion: We conclude that SCS offers an alternative treatment option for intractable post‐herniorrhaphy pain. This type of treatment should be considered for use in a select group of patients when all conventional treatments failed.     

Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation with Inter‐lead Stimulation for Axial Neck and Low Back Pain: Case Series and Review of the Literature

Objectives: While pain in the extremities often responds to treatment using spinal cord stimulation (SCS), axial pain is notoriously refractory to SCS. Interest in subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (SQ PNS) as an alternative to SCS has emerged, but the most appropriate electrode locations and neurostimulator programming techniques are not yet clear. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients evaluated from August 2009 to December 2010 who had undergone trial of SQ PNS with inter‐lead stimulation for axial spine pain. Patients proceeding to implant were followed postoperatively with routine clinical visits and a survey form at last follow‐up. Ultrasound was used intraoperatively to ensure placement of electrodes at the appropriate depth in patients with larger body mass index. Primary outcome was patient‐reported pain relief at last follow‐up. Literature review was conducted by searching MEDLINE (1948–present) and through an unstructured review by the authors. Results: Ten patients underwent trial of SQ PNS and six proceeded to permanent implantation. Fifty percent (3/6) of implanted patients preferred neurostimulation programming that included inter‐lead stimulation (“cross‐talk”). Average duration of postoperative follow‐up was 4.5 months (range 2–9 months). Average patient‐reported pain relief at last follow‐up was 45% (range 20–80%). One patient required re‐operation for migration. Patients not proceeding to implant had paresthesia coverage but no analgesia. Conclusion: SQ PNS is a promising therapy for axial neck and back pain based on a small cohort of patients. Ultrasound was useful to assist with electrode placement at the most appropriate depth beneath the skin. While inter‐lead stimulation has been preferred by patients in published reports, we did not find it clearly influenced pain relief. Future investigations should include a randomized, controlled study design, as well as defined implantation technique and neurostimulator programming algorithms.     

Evolving Patterns of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients Implanted for Intractable Low Back and Leg Pain

The objective of this study was to examine the programming strategies used in patients with intractable low‐back pain treated with epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) utilizing paddle electrodes and a radio frequency (RF) stimulator. Programming strategies were examined in a group of patients implanted with a 16‐contact paddle electrode and a dual channel RF receiver to treat chronic low‐back pain. Baseline data included previous surgical history information, leg and low back pain severity and characteristics, and routine demographic information. Outcome measurements included the visual analog scale (VAS) 1 , patient pain relief rating scale, and programming parameters. Patients rated their pain relief on a 5‐point scale where 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = poor and 0 = none. Success was determined to be a pain relief score of “fair” or above. Data were collected during patient visits or by mail, at approximately 6, 12, and 24 months, postoperatively. Immediate postop data were available in 16 patients, 6‐month data in 21 patients, 1‐year data in 20 patients, and 2‐year data in 10 patients, and analyzed for the purposes of examining programming strategies. The most common location for the tip of the electrode (lead) was found to be in the middle of the 8th thoracic vertebrae (N = 26). At the immediate postop assessment, the majority of cathodes were activated in the upper half of T9. By the 6‐month follow‐up, the majority of cathodes had shifted to the bottom of T9 and top of T10. Overall 88% of cathode locations were changed at one or more study visits. At 2 years, 86% of the programs used four or more active contacts. At 6 months, 83% of the patients reported that the therapy was a success, at 1 year, success was 94%, and by 2 years, success was 75%. Both SCS and chronic pain are dynamic processes. Complex pain patterns, such as the ones of patients who have pain in the low back and in one or both lower extremities, require a high degree of flexibility in the implanted SCS system. The system must provide the capability to redirect the current electronically over at least two segments of the spinal canal, to electronically steer the current in a medio‐lateral direction, and to activate multiple electrical contacts simultaneously. The willingness and ability to provide extensive reprogramming in the long term follow‐up is also of the utmost importance. Pain and its treatment with SCS is a dynamic process.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation Has Comparable Efficacy in Common Pain Etiologies

Objectives. The probability of success with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) depends largely on appropriate patient selection. Here, we have assessed the predictive value of pain etiology as it relates to pain relief with SCS as part of a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Methods. Sixty‐five subjects with chronic and intractable pain tested an epidural SCS system. Subjects reported pain ratings (visual analog scale) with stimulation off and stimulation on at scheduled follow‐up visits for up to 18 months after activation of the system. Visual analog scale scores were averaged and stratified by dominant pain etiologies, comprising failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and a subgroup of subjects with miscellaneous other pain etiologies. Results. More than 70% of subjects in each subgroup had successful outcomes during the temporary trial period and similar percentages of subjects from each etiology subgroup subsequently went on to permanent implantation. After permanent implantation, all subgroups reported more than 50% pain relief, on average, at each follow‐up time point. No predictive value of pain etiology was observed. Conclusions. Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for neuropathic pain arising from a variety of causes. Failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and pain of other etiologies responded equally well to SCS.