• Shrif Costandi, Nagy Mekhail, Gerges Azer, Diana Sue Mehanny, Demiana Hanna, Yustina Salma, Robert Bolash, and Youssef Saweris.
• Evidence-Based Pain Management Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
• Pain Pract. 2020 Nov 1; 20 (8): 937-945.

IntroductionDespite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems.MethodsData were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness.ResultsThe median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38).ConclusionsRechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.© 2020 World Institute of Pain.

15 keywords...

hide…