Summary of Popular Back Pain Treatment Revealed To Be Ineffective and Potentially Harmful:
A recent study published in the Cochrane Review has raised doubts about the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in relieving back pain. The study analyzed the results of 13 clinical trials and found that spinal cord stimulation is no better than a placebo for treating low back pain, with little to no benefit for people with low back pain or improving their quality of life. The review also found little clinical data regarding the long-term effects of spinal cord stimulation and poorly documented adverse side effects. The findings were submitted to the Federal Department of Health and Aged Care prosthesis list review task force, which reviews the eligibility of current prostheses subsidized by Medicare. The Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia is also reassessing the devices’ long-term safety and performance. The study’s lead researcher, Dr. Adrian Traeger, emphasized the urgent need to review funding arrangements for chronic pain care to help patients access evidence-based physical and psychological therapies for back pain.
*****
Spinal Cord Stimulation: Is it Effective in Treating Chronic Back Pain?
For individuals suffering from chronic back pain, spinal cord stimulation has been regarded as a viable treatment option that can provide long-term relief by interrupting pain signals through electrical impulses. However, a recent study has cast doubt on the effectiveness of this technology, suggesting it may have limited benefits and even detrimental effects.
Cochrane Review Reveals Spinal Cord Stimulation No Better Than Placebo
The Cochrane Review, known for its rigorous and objective methodology, analyzed 13 published clinical trials involving 699 participants, comparing spinal cord stimulation with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The review concluded that it offered no sustained benefit or improvement in quality of life compared to a placebo. Furthermore, the surgery’s long-term effectiveness and potential adverse effects remained largely unknown. However, potential risks could include nerve damage, infection, or dislocation of electrical leads that may necessitate repeat surgeries.
The Need for Urgent Reassessment and Funding Arrangements
These findings have prompted the Australian regulatory authority for therapeutic goods, The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), to reassess the long-term safety and performance of these devices subsidized by Medicare in Australia. Likewise, the study authors raised concerns about the costs and risks of spinal cord stimulation and the urgent need to review funding arrangements for chronic pain care, emphasizing the importance of making evidence-based physical and psychological therapies for back pain accessible to patients.
Addressing Gaps in Clinical Data
In addition to highlighting the lack of long-term clinical data, the review’s authors provided recommendations for future spinal cord stimulation clinical trials. These include documenting the number of people who experience adverse events, comparing spinal cord stimulation with other pain treatment options, and conducting tests that are at least 12 months long.
Conclusion
Spinal cord stimulation remains an invasive and costly surgical treatment proposed for chronic back pain patients that have come under scrutiny for offering no sustained benefit or improvement in their quality of life compared to a placebo. With the lack of long-term clinical data, the issue of the cost and risks associated with the surgery, and the urgent need for evidence-based physical and psychological therapies accessible to patients, the study findings have emphasized the importance of reassessing how we approach chronic pain care.
Comments are closed