I read with interest the manuscript from Costandi et al. entitled “Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non‐Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study” (1). The authors discuss cost‐effectiveness of non‐rechargeable versus rechargeable implantable pulse generators (IPG), and conclude that non‐rechargeable SCS systems are more cost‐effective from the hospital and ambulatory surgical center perspective.

中文翻译：

---

关于科斯坦迪等人。“可充电和不可充电脊髓刺激植入物的寿命和使用成本：比较研究”

我饶有兴趣地阅读了科斯坦迪等人的手稿。题为“可充电和不可充电脊髓刺激植入物的寿命和使用成本：比较研究”（1）。作者讨论了不可充电与可充电植入式脉冲发生器 (IPG) 的成本效益，并得出结论，从医院和门诊手术中心的角度来看，不可充电 SCS 系统更具成本效益。