A growing number of Australian doctors and private health fund providers are calling for the use of spinal cord stimulators to be reconsidered, following new research that highlights significant risks and questionable benefits.
The devices, which are implanted under the skin with electrodes to deliver electrical pulses that interrupt nerve pain signals, are commonly used to treat chronic conditions such as back pain, neck pain, and complex regional pain syndrome.
However, a recent study published in the Medical Journal of Australia found that 23% of patients who received spinal cord stimulators required revision surgery for complications within three years. Researchers also noted the high cost, with the median price of a device nearing AUD 56,000 and some treatments exceeding AUD 500,000.
Lead researcher Dr. Caitlin Jones, from the University of Sydney’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health, said the risks far outweigh the potential benefits. “Patients should know they are taking on a substantial risk, that is exorbitantly expensive, with very little likelihood of any benefit,” she warned.
Private Healthcare Australia (PHA), representing insurers and their 15 million members, has echoed the researchers’ concerns. PHA CEO Dr. Rachel David said that although Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has already cancelled or imposed conditions on some stimulators, regulatory action has been inadequate.
“If these devices were new technologies applying for Medicare funding today, they would be considered too dangerous,” David said, urging the government to review the devices through the Medicare Services Advisory Committee and remove them if they fail to meet safety standards.
According to PHA, around 90% of these devices are implanted in the private health sector. David emphasized that health funds are committed to supporting evidence-based, safe treatments for chronic pain.
In response, the Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA), which represents device manufacturers, defended spinal cord stimulators as safe and effective alternatives to long-term drug use, especially opioids. They cited clinical trial data and real-world outcomes to support continued use of the technology.
