Dutch Consensus Paper: A Consensus View on the Place of Neurostimulation Within the Treatment Arsenal of Five Reimbursed Indications for Neurostimulation in The Netherlands

Caro T.M. Edelbroek*, Jan Willem Kallewaard, Inge D'eer, Erkan Kurt, Harold J.A. Nijhuis, Chris T.M. Terwiel, Tom W.G. van de Voort, Gusta M. de Vries-Fennis, Jitske Tiemensma, Frank Huygen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


Introduction: After an interpretation trajectory, the Dutch Quality of Healthcare Institute recommended that for five indications, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, or occipital nerve stimulation, together referred to as neurostimulation, can be considered effective and be reimbursed in the Netherlands. These five indications are the well and largely studied, accepted neurostimulation indications in scientific literature. As an extension of this, all the scientific societies involved in the Netherlands were required to reach a consensus about the diagnosis and treatment of these five formulated indications to describe the place of neurostimulation within the treatment algorithm. This article describes the development process and content of the consensus paper. Materials and Methods: A scientific committee, consisting of three anesthesiologists/pain physicians (one of whom acted as the working group's chair), a neurosurgeon, a neurologist, a rehabilitation physician, and three nurse practitioners, participated. A quality advisor of the Knowledge Institute of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists supported the committee. The committee participated on behalf of their various scientific and professional societies. Three sessions were organized during which the place of neurostimulation in the treatment algorithm of the five relevant indications was discussed extensively. A narrative literature review and experts’ opinions formed the basis of decision-making in the process. Results: For all five diagnoses, general and diagnosis-specific treatment requirements, conservative treatments, and minimally invasive treatments are listed. These treatments should be considered in the chronic pain management algorithm before eventually proceeding to neurostimulation. Discussion/Conclusion: The content of this consensus view was discussed and compared with other literature on cost-effectiveness and the place in the algorithm of treating chronic pain. This Dutch consensus paper could ultimately contribute to the maintenance or expansion of neurostimulation and the reimbursement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1059-1063
Number of pages5
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics


Dive into the research topics of 'Dutch Consensus Paper: A Consensus View on the Place of Neurostimulation Within the Treatment Arsenal of Five Reimbursed Indications for Neurostimulation in The Netherlands'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this