Spinal Cord Stimulation for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II: A Systematic Review and Subgroup Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundPersistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) type II represents a challenging clinical entity with limited therapeutic options. Various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities have emerged as potential treatments, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. ObjectiveOur goal in this paper is to systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy of different SCS modalities in patients with PSPS type II through meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials. Evidence ReviewWe conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, searching major databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating SCS modalities in PSPS type II patients until the end of May 2025(search updated on October 3rd). Primary outcomes included pain intensity (VAS) and functional disability (ODI) at 6 and 12 months. Subgroup analyses compared tonic versus burst stimulation and high-frequency versus low-frequency SCS. FindingsNine randomized controlled trials were included, encompassing 565 patients across different SCS modalities. For the primary outcome of clinically meaningful pain relief ([&ge;]50% reduction), pooled analysis demonstrated that 45% (95% CI: 18-75%, I{superscript 2} = 92.2%) of patients achieved this threshold for back pain and 55% (95% CI: 45-65%, I{superscript 2} = 0%) for leg pain. Subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in back pain responder rates by stimulation modality: High-frequency SCS demonstrated responder rates of 92% (95% CI: 79-98%) versus 28% (95% CI: 13-49%) for conventional frequencies (p < 0.001). For leg pain, no significant difference was observed between tonic (51%, 95% CI: 37-65%) and burst stimulation (60%, 95% CI: 45-74%, p = 0.36) and mean VAS scores demonstrated significantly lower pain with high-frequency SCS (13.30, 95% CI: 8.82-17.78) compared to conventional frequency (28.42, 95% CI: 24.02-32.88, p<0.0001). For back pain, mean VAS scores decreased from a baseline of 73.03 to 41.67 (95% CI: 36.12-47.22, I{superscript 2}=22.8%) at 6 months and remained stable at 35.66 (95% CI: 25.39-45.93, I{superscript 2}=75.0%) at 12 months. Leg pain showed more pronounced improvement, with VAS scores declining from a baseline of 61.81 to 23.75 (95% CI: 17.69-29.81, I{superscript 2}=78.8%) at 6 months and 29.16 (95% CI: 24.81-33.52, I{superscript 2}=0%) at 12 months). Meta-regression identified longer pain duration and older age as positive predictors of response, while higher baseline leg pain predicted lower responder rates. Serious adverse events occurred in 10%, with a 16% revision surgery rate. Only two studies demonstrated a low risk of bias across all domains. ConclusionsCurrent evidence demonstrates that various SCS modalities provide clinically meaningful pain relief in PSPS type II patients, with approximately half achieving [&ge;]50% pain reduction. High-frequency SCS shows significantly superior responder rates for back pain compared to conventional tonic stimulation, while burst stimulation yields significantly superior reductions in continuous pain intensity metrics. However, the limited number of studies, substantial heterogeneity, and lack of head-to-head comparisons prevent definitive recommendations regarding optimal stimulation parameters. Future large-scale randomized trials with standardized protocols and responder-based outcomes are needed to establish evidence-based treatment algorithms for PSPS type II patients.