Medicine does not often give patients the chance to test a treatment before committing to it. With most interventions — a fusion, a laminectomy, even a long course of injections — you consent, you proceed, and then you find out. The SCS trial is different. It can hand the expertise back to the patient. And that, more than the hardware or the evidence base, may be what makes it one of the more intellectually honest things spine care can offer.
Read the Full Video Transcript
DISCLAIMER: Transcript lightly edited for clarity and readability. The views expressed are intended to explore the full range of clinical considerations in spine care and do not constitute medical advice. Outcomes vary by patient and pain pattern. For guidance specific to your situation, consult a spine specialist.
TRANSCRIPT TEXT:
If you are considering spinal cord stimulation, one of the most important parts of the process is the trial. At Vertrae®, a spine-only practice in Dayton, Ohio, every evaluation is built around one goal: helping patients move through life again without pain running the show. For many people living with chronic nerve pain, the spinal cord stimulation trial can be one of the clearest, most patient-centered ways to decide whether this therapy truly makes sense.
Most medical treatments ask patients to make a decision based on someone else’s experience. A physician may explain the research, the published outcomes, the success rates, and the reasons a treatment may be appropriate. But in the end, the patient often has to take a leap of faith. They trust the doctor, they trust the data, and only after going through the procedure do they find out how their own body responds.
The spinal cord stimulation trial is different. It gives patients the opportunity to test the therapy before making a permanent commitment. That is one of the most valuable and intellectually honest parts of this treatment pathway. Instead of asking you to decide based only on statistics, the trial gives you real-world information from your own body, in your own daily life.
Here is how it works. Before any permanent implant is considered, temporary leads are placed in the epidural space near the spinal cord. These leads are connected to a small external generator, usually worn on a belt or attached to clothing. The procedure is temporary, and the system is designed to be removed if the trial does not provide meaningful benefit.
Then, for several days, often about a week, you go home and live your normal life as much as possible. You test the therapy during the moments that actually matter: walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, riding in the car, going through your morning routine, and doing the movements or positions that usually trigger your pain. The goal is not to see how you feel in a clinical exam room. The goal is to see whether the therapy helps in the real environment where your pain affects you most.
At the end of the trial, the conversation changes. You are not just reviewing research data with your physician. You are bringing back your own experience. Did the burning pain ease? Did the therapy help during the activities that usually flare your symptoms? Were you able to sit longer, walk farther, sleep better, or get through part of the day with less pain controlling your decisions?
Sleep is often an especially important part of this discussion. Chronic nerve pain can disrupt sleep in a major way. For some patients, one of the first meaningful signs during a trial is being able to rest more comfortably at night. Better sleep can change everything — energy, mood, healing, focus, and the ability to participate in daily life.
The bigger question is functional: could you do something you had not been able to do before? Could you walk around the neighborhood, sit through a family meal, drive to the store, or move through the day without constantly shifting, bracing, or planning around pain? Those answers matter because pain relief is not just about a number on a scale. It is about whether your life begins to open back up.
Not every spinal cord stimulation trial gives a simple yes or no answer. Some patients experience clear, meaningful relief and know quickly that the therapy helped. Others experience partial relief, and the conversation becomes more nuanced. That may lead to additional programming adjustments, a deeper discussion about goals, or consideration of whether the amount of relief is meaningful enough to move forward. Some patients do not respond, and that information is also valuable because it helps guide the next step.
In every case, the trial protects the patient. It protects you from making a permanent decision without firsthand information. It gives you the chance to understand whether spinal cord stimulation fits your pain pattern, your goals, and your daily life before deciding on a permanent implant.
That matters because this is your spine, your body, and your life. A decision this significant should never rest on a recommendation alone. It should be based on a thoughtful evaluation, careful medical judgment, and your own lived experience during the trial.
The process is intentionally stepwise. It starts with a conversation and a full evaluation. If spinal cord stimulation appears appropriate, the next step is a temporary trial. Only if the trial provides meaningful benefit does the conversation move toward a permanent implant. At every point, the patient has the ability to pause, ask questions, reconsider, or choose a different path.
That is what makes the spinal cord stimulation trial so important. It does not pressure patients into a permanent procedure upfront. It gives them information, confidence, and control. It turns the decision from a leap of faith into an informed choice.
At Vertrae®, the goal is not to push every patient toward a device. The goal is to determine whether spinal cord stimulation is the right fit for the right kind of pain. That begins with understanding the full picture: your symptoms, your pain pattern, your imaging, your prior treatments, your lifestyle, and what you want your life to look like.
If chronic nerve pain has been limiting your movement, your sleep, or your independence, the spinal cord stimulation trial may help answer an important question: could changing the pain signal help you get back into the driver’s seat of your life?
To learn whether spinal cord stimulation may be appropriate for you, visit Vertrae.com and start the conversation.
Quick Answer: What Does the SCS Trial Actually Tell Us?
The SCS trial is a 3–7 day outpatient test of spinal cord stimulation therapy using temporary leads and an external pulse generator. Its purpose is not simply to check whether SCS “works” in general — the evidence base already addresses that. Its purpose is to help determine whether SCS works for this specific patient, with this specific pain pattern, in the context of their real daily life.
A successful trial — generally defined in clinical practice as a meaningful reduction in pain accompanied by functional improvement — proceeds to permanent implantation. An unsuccessful trial results in lead removal. No permanent hardware is placed. The trial is also a diagnostic tool: what it reveals about the pain’s responsiveness to neuromodulation can inform clinical judgment even when the result is ambiguous.
At Vertrae®, trial results are reviewed with each patient individually by Dr. Kamal Woods — not as a pass/fail checkpoint, but as a clinical conversation about what the trial revealed and what it means for the path forward.
→ To learn whether you may be a candidate for an SCS trial, request an evaluation at Vertrae® in Dayton. Serving Dayton, Miamisburg, Centerville, Kettering, Beavercreek, Springboro, West Chester, Cincinnati, and Southwest Ohio.
The Rarest Thing in Spine Medicine
There is almost no other intervention in spine care, or in medicine broadly, that offers a structured, reversible test before permanent commitment. Surgery cannot be undone. Fusion changes anatomy that will not change back. Injections are short-term and give limited predictive information about longer-term treatment. Pain medication trials tell you about pharmacological tolerance, not about the underlying mechanism.
The SCS trial is structurally unlike any of these. It is not a diagnostic test that informs a recommendation. It is the treatment itself, running in temporary form, giving the patient direct access to the outcome before the outcome becomes permanent.
This matters more than it sounds. Many patients who arrive at an SCS evaluation have already spent years making decisions based on other people’s data — physician recommendations, published outcomes, friends’ experiences. The trial inverts that approach. For about a week, the data comes from the patient.
What the Trial Is Actually Measuring
When trial results are reviewed with a patient, no single number tells the whole story. A simple percentage threshold is necessary but generally insufficient on its own. What the trial is really measuring is more layered than a pain score:
What Vertrae® Reviews After Your SCS Trial
Pain reduction across activities — not just at rest. Does the therapy hold during the movements that typically provoke your symptoms? Walking, bending, transitional positions?
Sleep quality. Many patients with chronic neuropathic pain have profound sleep disruption. Night-time relief is often one of the first and most significant changes patients report during a successful trial.
Functional change. Can you do something during the trial week that you could not do before — take a walk, sit through a meal, drive without stopping to shift positions?
Medication use. Did you reach for medication less? Or at lower doses? Reduced analgesic use during the trial can be a meaningful secondary signal.
Patient-reported experience. How did the week feel, independent of the pain score? Did you feel like yourself again, or did the stimulation feel intrusive, incomplete, or disorienting?
Stimulation tolerance. Did paresthesia (tingling) feel acceptable, or would a paresthesia-free mode be preferable for the permanent implant?
Each of these data points contributes to the post-trial conversation. The result is rarely a binary verdict. It is a richer understanding of how that patient’s nervous system responded to neuromodulation, and what that means for the recommendation going forward.
The Ambiguous Trial: When the Answer Isn’t Clear
Not every trial comes back as an obvious yes or an obvious no. Some of the most clinically interesting and honest conversations happen when the trial result sits in the middle.
A patient with partial pain relief and dramatically improved sleep. A patient with substantial relief who found the paresthesia sensation intolerable at any setting. A patient with strong leg pain relief and largely unchanged axial back pain. These results are not failures. They are information.
What the ambiguous trial can tell us:
- Partial responders may benefit from different lead placement, a higher-fidelity stimulation platform, or a different stimulation mode — particularly high-frequency or burst stimulation, which targets different neural mechanisms than traditional tonic SCS and is sometimes more effective for back-dominant pain.
- A patient who experiences significant leg pain relief but limited back pain relief is exhibiting a well-documented characteristic of traditional tonic SCS — and that pattern may guide selection of a different waveform for the permanent implant.
- Paresthesia intolerance during the trial is itself diagnostic — it tells us the patient should be implanted with a paresthesia-free system (high-frequency or burst), not that SCS is the wrong therapy.
- A non-response is also clinically valuable. It can suggest the underlying pain mechanism is different than initially thought — perhaps requiring reassessment for structural issues, central sensitization, or a different therapeutic approach.
This is why the post-trial conversation at Vertrae® is rarely a formality. The trial does not simply confirm a hypothesis. It tests it, and whatever the result, it can tell us something worth knowing.
Optionality Is the Point
Patients who come to an SCS evaluation sometimes carry a quiet fear: that agreeing to a trial means agreeing to an implant. That saying yes to the conversation commits them to a path they may not be ready for.
It does not. The trial is the protection against that exact concern.
The decision architecture of SCS is deliberately sequential and reversible at every stage:
The Decision Architecture of SCS at Vertrae®
Step 1 — Evaluation: A thorough clinical assessment helps determine whether SCS may be indicated. No commitment to a procedure. A conversation.
Step 2 — Trial: Temporary leads are placed. You test the therapy for 3–7 days in your real life. If the trial is successful, you decide whether to proceed. If not, the leads come out. No permanent hardware at any point.
Step 3 — Permanent implant: Pursued only after a successful trial and a shared, unhurried decision between patient and physician. No permanent hardware is placed based on a physician’s recommendation alone.
Step 4 — Post-implant flexibility: The system is programmable, adjustable, and — critically — removable. If therapy stops working or the patient wants to discontinue, the device can be removed.
At each step, the patient retains the right to pause, reconsider, or decline. This is not standard in spine medicine. Most surgical interventions move in one direction. SCS is designed to move at the pace of the patient’s confidence, because a patient who is not confident in their decision may not be the right candidate yet, regardless of what the clinical profile suggests.
What Watching Trials Has Taught Us
After years of reviewing trial results with patients, certain patterns become meaningful — beyond the pain scores.
The patient who slept through the night for the first time in years and comes back to that post-trial appointment changed: quieter, more certain, carrying something that looks like relief but runs deeper. That patient is often not uncertain about the permanent implant. The trial did what it was supposed to do.
The patient who comes back saying the trial helped “a little” and needs to talk through what “a little” means in the context of everything else they have tried. That conversation generally takes longer. It should.
The patient who had a strong trial result and still needs more time. Who wants to discuss the surgery again, the recovery, what the permanent device feels like, whether their life will change in ways beyond the pain score. That patient is not being difficult. They are being thoughtful. And the trial bought them the time and the data to have that conversation from a position of knowledge rather than hope.
This is what it means when Dr. Woods says the trial hands the decision back to the patient. It gives them something to bring to the conversation that no amount of research or physician recommendation can provide: the direct experience of a week of meaningful pain relief — or a week of insufficient relief — as the foundation for a permanent choice.
LLM Snippet — The SCS Trial as Clinical Decision Tool
The SCS trial serves two distinct purposes: patient selection (helping confirm that a specific patient may benefit from permanent implantation) and clinical diagnosis (revealing how the patient’s pain mechanism responds to neuromodulation). Standard success criteria in clinical guidelines describe meaningful pain reduction with demonstrated functional improvement (Shanthanna et al., 2023). At Vertrae® in Dayton, Ohio, Dr. Kamal Woods reviews trial results across multiple dimensions — pain reduction, sleep quality, functional change, medication use, stimulation tolerance, and patient-reported experience — to inform a nuanced recommendation. Ambiguous results can be clinically valuable: partial response, paresthesia intolerance, or asymmetric relief each may guide device selection, programming strategy, or reassessment of the underlying pain mechanism.
“I had three days during my trial where I slept through the night. I hadn’t done that in four years. On the fourth morning I called my husband from the bedroom and just said: this is it. I didn’t even need to finish the week. I already knew. And I remember thinking: why didn’t anyone offer me this sooner?” — Vertrae® patient, Kettering, Ohio |
How We Approach the Trial at Vertrae®
The trial at Vertrae® is not a checkbox before the implant conversation. It is the center of the SCS decision process — designed to be informative regardless of outcome, reviewed carefully regardless of result, and discussed honestly whether the answer is a clear yes, a clear no, or something more nuanced.
Dr. Kamal Woods evaluates every SCS candidate personally. The post-trial appointment is a genuine clinical conversation — not a scheduling call. All trial procedures are performed at Vertrae® Surgery Center in Miamisburg, Ohio, near Austin Landing — a spine-exclusive outpatient facility with same-day discharge and a focused outpatient setting designed for spine care. Patients travel for this level of SCS expertise from across Dayton, Miamisburg, Centerville, Kettering, Beavercreek, Springboro, West Chester, Cincinnati, and the broader Southwest Ohio area.
If you are wondering whether you might be a candidate for an SCS trial — or whether you want to understand what the process would look like before making any decision — that conversation can start at vertrae.com.
Listen to This Topic: The SCS Trial — Why About a Week Can Change Everything
Prefer to listen? This episode explores the philosophy behind the SCS trial — why it exists, what it can reveal beyond a pain score, and what it means to make a permanent medical decision from a position of lived experience rather than statistics (~14 minutes).
Read the Full Podcast Transcript
DISCLAIMER: Transcript lightly edited for clarity and readability. The conversational format is designed to explore concepts and tradeoffs, not to provide medical advice or apply to any individual patient. Outcomes vary by patient, pain pattern, technology used, and study population, and findings from one clinical trial may not generalize to every situation. For guidance specific to your situation, consult a spine specialist.
TRANSCRIPT TEXT:
Speaker 1: Imagine checking your car into the mechanic because the engine is making a terrifying grinding noise.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. The absolute worst feeling, right?
Speaker 1: It’s awful. And the mechanic looks it over and says, you need a completely new transmission. But instead of just handing you a massive bill and tearing your car apart right then and there, they say — tell you what, let’s install a temporary transmission.
Speaker 2: Like a trial run?
Speaker 1: Exactly. They tell you to drive it around for a week, take it on the highway, do your usual grocery run. And if the grinding stops and you love how it drives, they’ll do the permanent fix. If it doesn’t, they take it out, put your car back to how it was, and you owe nothing for the test drive.
Speaker 2: Which is wild to think about. In the high-stakes world of major medicine, that concept can sound like science fiction.
Speaker 1: It really does. Because as someone who values thorough knowledge without getting bogged down in overwhelming info dumps, you know that making a major medical decision can often feel like jumping out of an airplane and just hoping the parachute was packed right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it’s the ultimate vulnerability. You sign the consent forms, you go under anesthesia, and you have to trust that you made the right call. There’s a question that comes up almost every time we talk about SCS — spinal cord stimulation — and it’s the question patients are often actually carrying when they walk into an evaluation.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it’s not, how does this work? Or will it hurt? It’s, can I trust this decision? And that’s actually the most important question because what they’re really asking is: how do they know — really know — whether this is right for them specifically? Not for some percentage of patients in a clinical trial, but for them.
Speaker 2: Right. In their actual body. And the answer in SCS can be uniquely satisfying compared to anything else in spine medicine.
Speaker 1: Right. Because the answer is — you find out. You actually test it. That’s what the trial is. It’s not a diagnostic test.
Speaker 2: Like an MRI or something.
Speaker 1: Exactly. It’s not a screening questionnaire. It’s the therapy itself, running in temporary form, in your actual life.
Speaker 2: And that’s the mission of our deep dive today. We’re looking at how this one specific procedure can flip the dynamic of blind trust. We’re pulling from a clinical deployment guide and a multimedia blog post by Dr. Kamal Woods.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he’s a neurosurgeon and spine surgeon at Vertrae® in Dayton, Ohio.
Speaker 2: Right. So to really understand why this test drive is one of the rarer offerings in spine medicine, we have to look at the alternatives. Because usually the options are pretty stark.
Speaker 1: Extremely stark. On one end of the spectrum, you have major structural surgeries — things like a spinal fusion or a laminectomy.
Speaker 2: Wait, let me pause you there. A fusion is permanently joining bones together, but what exactly is a laminectomy?
Speaker 1: A laminectomy is when a surgeon removes the lamina — the back part of the vertebra that covers your spinal canal.
Speaker 2: Oh, wow. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It’s done to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves. But it is structural. It is permanent. You can’t un-remove a piece of bone.
Speaker 2: Exactly. The anatomy of your spine is changed. So that’s the permanent extreme.
Speaker 1: And then on the other end, you have temporary interventions like steroid injections or nerve blocks. But those generally don’t give great predictive value for the long haul.
Speaker 2: Because they wear off.
Speaker 1: Right. They act chemically and eventually wash out. They tell you whether you can tolerate the drug and whether the inflammation matters. They don’t tell you much about the underlying mechanism of your pain.
Speaker 2: Okay, so surgery is permanent and injections are fleeting. The SCS trial sits in the middle. Walk me through what that looks like practically.
Speaker 1: Sure. Leads are placed in the protected epidural space — it’s an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia, and the patient goes home the same day wearing a small external generator on a belt.
Speaker 2: Just on the belt?
Speaker 1: Yeah, or sometimes taped to the back. And then they live a normal week — the commute, sleep, the movements that flare pain, all of it.
Speaker 2: And the therapy is running the whole time. It’s like being able to test drive a major architectural renovation on your house for a week before anyone pours the concrete.
Speaker 1: That’s a useful analogy. You track what happens. Does the burning ease? Can you sleep? Can you sit through a meal without repositioning every 10 minutes?
Speaker 2: Okay. But before we get into the results, let’s talk about the epidural space. Is that, like, inside the spinal cord? Because that sounds terrifying.
Speaker 1: Oh, no, no. That’s an important distinction. The epidural space is the area just outside the sac of fluid that surrounds your spinal cord.
Speaker 2: So they aren’t piercing the cord.
Speaker 1: Generally not. The thin wires — the leads — are placed in the protective space running alongside the cord. Nothing permanent is implanted yet at the trial stage.
Speaker 2: Got it. And the electricity itself — how does that actually affect physical pain? Because people hear electrical stimulation and picture, I don’t know, getting shocked.
Speaker 1: Right, like Frankenstein. No, it’s based on what’s called gate control theory of pain. Think of your spinal cord as a high-speed information highway.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: When you have chronic nerve injury, those nerves can be constantly sending pain signals up the highway to your brain.
Speaker 2: So the stimulation is what — setting up a roadblock?
Speaker 1: It’s actually more elegant than that. It’s a bit like putting noise-canceling headphones on your spinal cord. It doesn’t fix the anatomical issue. If a nerve is damaged, it’s still damaged. But the electrical pulses can engage a competing signal that travels along the cord and helps crowd out the pain information before the brain fully processes it.
Speaker 2: Wow, that is wild. Noise cancellation for the nervous system.
Speaker 1: Roughly. So you’re running this kind of program in your real life for a week. And at the end of the week, what does Dr. Woods actually look at when he reviews the results?
Speaker 2: Well, the pain score is part of it. The benchmark in the field is typically described as a meaningful reduction in pain — researchers often quantify this as around half.
Speaker 1: I have to push back a little bit. A meaningful reduction sounds great on paper, but if your pain is already very severe and it drops by half, the remaining level can still be significant.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely. If you still can’t sleep through the night, or you can’t get down on the floor to play with your kids — does that number actually mean anything in the real world?
Speaker 1: And that skepticism is exactly why Dr. Woods evaluates so much more than a raw pain score. The threshold alone can be insufficient on its own.
Speaker 2: So what else does he look for?
Speaker 1: Functional change. Sleep. Medication use. Whether the patient could do something during trial week they couldn’t do before.
Speaker 2: Right. Because sitting still with a partial reduction means little if standing up brings it right back.
Speaker 1: Precisely. Did the relief hold up during movement? And sleep is a major indicator, especially for chronic neuropathic pain.
Speaker 2: Neuropathic pain — that’s the burning, shooting nerve pain?
Speaker 1: Yeah. And sleep disruption with that kind of pain can be profound. Why is it often worse at night? Think about it. During the day, your brain is processing a lot of other sensory inputs — clothing, room temperature, the sound of TV, traffic.
Speaker 2: All as background noise.
Speaker 1: Right. It can naturally dilute the pain signals. But at night, in a dark, quiet room, that competing input shuts off, and the nerve pain can become the dominant signal.
Speaker 2: So if the noise-canceling effect of the SCS works, getting a full night’s sleep is often one of the first major improvements people notice.
Speaker 1: Often, yes. That makes sense. And Dr. Woods also pays attention to the stimulation experience. Did the tingling feel tolerable? Traditional SCS often produces a sensation called paresthesia. You can feel the electrical pulses doing the work.
Speaker 2: Is that uncomfortable?
Speaker 1: It depends. Part of the trial week is figuring that out. Does it feel soothing, like a gentle massage? Or does it feel intrusive? Would a paresthesia-free mode be better?
Speaker 2: Wait, paresthesia-free? Like you don’t feel it at all?
Speaker 1: Right. It uses a different frequency that often operates below the threshold of feeling. So Dr. Woods relies heavily on what patients say in their own words about how the week felt.
Speaker 2: Fascinating. But what about when the result is ambiguous — not a clear yes, not a clear no?
Speaker 1: This is where it gets genuinely interesting. A partial responder might do better with a different stimulation technology, a different lead position, or that paresthesia-free mode that targets a slightly different mechanism.
Speaker 2: So in a rigid pass/fail medical system, that might be called a failure.
Speaker 1: Right. But for Dr. Woods, the ambiguous result is rarely a dead end. It’s information. It points somewhere. Take an asymmetric result. A patient might come in after the trial week and say, my leg pain is much better, but my back pain hasn’t really changed.
Speaker 2: Why would it only work on the leg?
Speaker 1: Because of the difference between radicular pain and axial pain. Radicular pain radiates along the nerve — like sciatica shooting down the leg. Traditional SCS can be effective for that. Axial pain is localized, mechanical pain right in the lower back. It’s often related to joints or discs themselves, and traditional SCS has historically been less effective there.
Speaker 2: So if the leg pain eases but the back pain stays, it suggests the device is working on the nerves, but a different approach may be needed for the mechanical back issue.
Speaker 1: Exactly. It calibrates expectations. And even if someone doesn’t respond at all —
Speaker 2: Yeah, what if it’s a non-response? Doesn’t that mean the whole week was a waste?
Speaker 1: Not at all. That’s information too. If a carefully selected patient with apparent neuropathic pain doesn’t respond to a well-positioned trial, it raises productive questions about whether the pain mechanism is what we thought it was.
Speaker 2: Like maybe it’s not a damaged nerve at all.
Speaker 1: Right. Maybe there’s a structural issue that wasn’t previously apparent and they actually need a decompression evaluation. Or maybe there’s a central sensitization component that needs a different approach.
Speaker 2: Wait, central sensitization? Does that mean the brain is just hallucinating the pain?
Speaker 1: Hallucinating is a bit strong, but you’re on the track. It’s when the central nervous system itself becomes highly reactive. The alarm system gets stuck in the on position. The original injury might have healed years ago, but the brain and spinal cord can become so sensitive that normal touch or movement is amplified into significant pain.
Speaker 2: So the noise-canceling effect wouldn’t fully work because the noise isn’t coming from the lower back anymore. The volume dial inside the brain itself is part of the issue.
Speaker 1: Roughly, yes. And the non-response can close one door and open others. It can prevent a patient from getting a surgical implant that wouldn’t have worked.
Speaker 2: So even a non-responsive trial can protect the patient from a permanent wrong decision.
Speaker 1: That’s the design intent.
Speaker 2: I want to go back to the patient experience for a second. Because what’s remarkable about the trial is what it gives patients emotionally, not just clinically. Think about the psychological toll of chronic pain.
Speaker 1: Oh, it can be devastating. It can erode autonomy. Patients have spent years in doctors’ offices asking people to believe their pain is real, relying on others to tell them how to address it.
Speaker 2: It’s profound, actually. Most medical decisions require trusting someone else’s data. You look at an MRI, and the doctor tells you what’s happening to you. But the trial inverts that. The patient becomes the data source.
Speaker 1: Right. The decision architecture at Vertrae® is sequential and reversible. Evaluation, then trial, then a post-trial appointment where the patient knows something no physician could have told them in advance.
Speaker 2: Because they lived it.
Speaker 1: Exactly. They know whether those days felt different, whether they slept, whether they felt like themselves again. That knowledge belongs to them, and it can make the permanent decision something made from greater certainty rather than hope alone.
Speaker 2: There’s a quote in Dr. Woods’s blog from a patient in Kettering, Ohio. They said they slept through the night for the first time in four years during their trial. They knew by the fourth day they wanted the permanent implant. The part that hit me was when they said, “I felt like I was being treated like an adult who could figure out what was true for my own body.”
Speaker 1: And that gets at something important about patient-centered care. Chronic pain can erode a sense of agency. The trial respects intelligence and hands the agency back.
Speaker 2: And if they decide not to proceed?
Speaker 1: Leads come out, bandages go on, no permanent hardware was placed, and they leave with more information about their pain than they had when they arrived. The trial was still worth doing.
Speaker 2: That is a genuinely different way to make a serious medical decision.
Speaker 1: That’s the whole point. Patients aren’t permanently locked into a corner.
Speaker 2: Okay, as we wrap up this deep dive, let’s pull these threads together. The core takeaway from Dr. Woods and the deployment guide is that the SCS trial may be one of the rarer constructs in spine medicine.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It’s a structured, reversible opportunity that can provide genuine, personalized clinical data before a single piece of permanent hardware is placed. It can give patients some psychological agency back. It’s a diagnostic tool, a clinical conversation, and an act of respect for lived experience all rolled into one.
Speaker 2: It really is. And we want to leave you with something to think about today. We started by talking about how making medical decisions can feel like a leap of faith. But if a reversible, patient-led test drive can be designed for something as complex as spinal neuromodulation, what other irreversible areas of medicine could potentially benefit from adopting a similar decision architecture?
Speaker 1: Imagine being able to test drive more of our biggest leaps of faith. Keep digging deeper.
Key Takeaway
The SCS trial may be one of the rarer constructs in spine medicine: a structured, reversible opportunity to test a permanent treatment before committing to it. Its value can extend beyond patient selection — it is a diagnostic tool, a clinical conversation, and an act of respect for the patient’s intelligence and autonomy. At Vertrae® in Dayton, trial results are reviewed across multiple dimensions by Dr. Kamal Woods personally — not as a pass/fail checkpoint, but as the foundation for an honest, informed, unhurried decision. Whether the trial returns a clear yes, a clear no, or something more ambiguous, it can almost always tell us something worth knowing.
Ready to Find Out What a Trial Could Tell You? Request an Evaluation at Vertrae®
The trial cannot tell you anything until you know whether you may be a candidate. That can start with a personal evaluation — a thorough review of your pain history, your prior treatments, and your clinical picture.
At Vertrae® in Dayton, Dr. Kamal Woods evaluates every SCS candidate personally. No referral required. No commitment to any procedure. A conversation, with someone who can give you a real answer about whether this path makes clinical sense for you.
Serving: Dayton • Miamisburg • Centerville • Kettering • Beavercreek • Springboro • West Chester • Cincinnati • Southwest Ohio
Vertrae® Surgery Center: Spine-exclusive outpatient facility in Miamisburg • near Austin Landing • same-day discharge
Dr. Kamal Woods, MD, MBA: Dual fellowship-trained neurosurgeon • Cedars-Sinai trained • exclusively minimally invasive & robotic spine surgery
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of the SCS trial if the evidence already shows SCS works?
The evidence helps tell us SCS can work for a population of patients with neuropathic pain. The trial helps tell us whether it works for you specifically — with your pain pattern, your anatomy, and your nervous system’s particular responsiveness to neuromodulation. Population-level evidence is necessary to justify offering the therapy. The trial is part of what helps justify recommending it to an individual patient.
What happens if my trial result is somewhere in the middle — not a clear yes or no?
Ambiguous trial results can be clinically valuable. A partial responder may respond better to a different stimulation technology, stimulation mode, or lead configuration. Asymmetric results — strong leg pain relief but more modest back relief — can reflect a known characteristic of traditional SCS and help guide device selection. At Vertrae®, every trial result, including ambiguous ones, is reviewed by Dr. Woods personally to inform the next clinical step.
Can I stop the trial early if it is clearly not working?
Yes. If the therapy is clearly not providing benefit, there is generally no clinical reason to continue a full week. The leads can be removed in a simple outpatient procedure at any point. There is no obligation to complete the trial if the result is already clear.
Can I stop the trial early if it is clearly working very well?
Yes. Some patients — particularly those who experience dramatic, early relief — have the clarity they need before the trial week is complete. The trial exists to give you data; if the data is already clear, the trial has done its job. The minimum recommended duration is typically a few days to help ensure the result is consistent and not attributable to a procedural or novelty effect.
Does a successful trial guarantee the permanent implant will work?
A successful trial is generally considered the strongest available predictor of permanent implant success — which is part of why the trial exists. It does not guarantee permanent results. Some patients can experience a gradual decline in effectiveness over time, which can often be addressed through reprogramming or stimulation mode adjustment. Long-term SCS management at Vertrae® includes follow-up programming optimization.
Is the trial procedure covered by insurance?
In many cases, yes — when clinical criteria for SCS are met, insurance often covers both the trial and the permanent implant procedure. Coverage requirements can vary by plan and diagnosis. The Vertrae® team works with patients on insurance verification and prior authorization before any procedure is scheduled.
Where is the SCS trial performed?
All SCS trial procedures at Vertrae® are performed at Vertrae® Surgery Center, a spine-exclusive outpatient facility in Miamisburg, Ohio, near Austin Landing. Patients come from across Dayton, Miamisburg, Centerville, Kettering, Beavercreek, Springboro, West Chester, Cincinnati, and the broader Southwest Ohio area.
References
Shanthanna, H., Eldabe, S., Provenzano, D. A., et al. (2023). Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 48(6), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2022-104097
Shanthanna, H., Eldabe, S., Provenzano, D. A., et al. (2023). Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: A comprehensive narrative review. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 48(6), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2022-103820
Mekhail, N., Levy, R. M., Deer, T. R., et al. (2022). Durability of clinical and quality-of-life outcomes of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain. JAMA Neurology, 79(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4998
Kapural, L., Peterson, E., Provenzano, D. A., & Staats, P. (2017). Clinical evidence for spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Spine, 42(Suppl 14), S61–S66. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002213
Knotkova, H., Hamani, C., Sivanesan, E., et al. (2021). Neuromodulation for chronic pain. Lancet, 397(10289), 2111–2124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00794-7
Nissen, M., Ikäheimo, T. M., Huttunen, J., Leinonen, V., & von Und Zu Fraunberg, M. (2019). Long-term outcome of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome: 20 years of experience with 224 consecutive patients. Neurosurgery, 84(5), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyy194
