DeepSynapsCLINICAL INTELLIGENCE OS
Evidence map · SCS · failed back surgery syndrome

SCS for failed back surgery syndrome: what the research shows

Spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome. 517 papers from 1990 to 2026, including 9 meta-analyses, 29 systematic reviews and 22 randomised controlled trials. Each study below links to its source.

517Papers in the corpus
9Meta-analyses
22Randomised controlled trials
101Open-access papers

Study design

Jev labels
Meta-analysis9Systematic review29RCT22Non-randomised trial69Cohort74Case-control1Cross-sectional8Case series18

115 papers have no confident study-design label yet. Labels are AI-classified by Jev: advisory, not clinician-reviewed.

Papers over time

by publication year
16080 1990–942005–092025–26*

* 2025–26 is still in progress, so its count is incomplete.

Most-cited trials and reviews

by citations
  1. 1

    Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

    RCTKumar et al. · 2007 · 701 citations
  2. 2

    The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation.

    RCTKumar et al. · 2008 · 417 citations
  3. 3

    Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications.

    Systematic reviewTurner et al. · 2004 · 309 citations
  4. 4

    Nonsurgical interventional therapies for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society clinical practice guideline.

    Systematic reviewChou et al. · 2009 · 214 citations
  5. 5

    Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis based on a randomized, controlled trial.

    RCTNorth et al. · 2007 · 157 citations
  6. 6

    Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial).

    RCTManca et al. · 2008 · 143 citations
  7. 7

    Predictors of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation in chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

    Meta-analysisTaylor et al. · 2014 · 141 citations · Open access
  8. 8

    A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation patterns for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.

    RCTSchu et al. · 2014 · 137 citations

Recent trials and reviews

last 3 years
  1. 1

    Spinal Mechanisms of Pain Modulation by Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review.

    Systematic reviewFang et al. · 2025 · 2 citations · Open access
  2. 2

    Comparative Effectiveness of Different Frequencies of Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

    Meta-analysisQin et al. · 2025 · 0 citations · Open access
  3. 3

    Comparative Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Acute Pain and Chronic Pain Related to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

    Meta-analysisFang et al. · 2024 · 6 citations · Open access
  4. 4

    Long-term efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for chronic primary neuropathic pain in the contemporary era: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Meta-analysisFatima et al. · 2024 · 5 citations
  5. 5

    The Predicted Outcome of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With a Psychopathological Disorder and Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Systematic Review From 2009 to 2021.

    Systematic reviewHamm-Faber et al. · 2024 · 3 citations

Decision support only. This page summarises published literature; it is not medical advice or a recommendation for any patient. Study designs and topic labels are AI-classified by Jev: advisory, not clinician-reviewed. Abstracts are not reproduced here: follow the links to read each source. Data snapshot 2026-09-25.