[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Revisiting the WHO Analgesic Ladder for Surgical Management of Pain

Learning Objectives
1. Explain a new or unfamiliar viewpoint on a topic of ethical or professional conduct
2. Evaluate the usefulness of this information for health care practice, teaching, or conduct
3. Decide whether and when to apply the new information to health care practice, teaching, or conduct
1 Credit CME

The opioid epidemic challenges current attitudes toward pain management and necessitates the reexamination of the World Health Organization (WHO) 3-step analgesic ladder, introduced in 1986 for cancer pain management. Surgical treatment of pain is a logical extension of the original guideline, which is often absent in conversations with patients about treatment options for their pain and consequentially underutilized. However, with concerns growing regarding opioid use, a shift in the stepwise approach of the WHO analgesic ladder in an age of developing technology and surgical offerings could have profound implications for patients and public health. Surgical interventions potentially provide a long-term, cost-effective management strategy to reduce opioid use. This review canvasses surgical options, highlights literature on failed back surgery syndrome and spinal cord stimulation, and reconsiders the current ladder approach to pain management.


Quiz Ref IDPresented in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder provided a framework for the stepwise medical management of cancer-related pain.1 This 3-step ladder begins with nonopioid analgesics with or without nonpharmacological approaches for mild pain, continues with weak opioid medications (eg, codeine) with or without nonopioid analgesics and adjuvants for mild-to-moderate pain, and progresses to strong opioids (eg, oxycodone) with or without nonopioid analgesics and adjuvants for moderate-to-severe pain.1 The American Pain Society's identification of pain as the “fifth vital sign” in 1995 portended the increased importance of not only adequate treatment of pain in patients but also education of health care professionals.2,3 Eventually, a modified version of the 3-step ladder placed interventional pain management as a fourth step.4,5 Development of this algorithmic approach aimed to control refractory or intractable pain in both an efficient and a safe manner, providing a rational and balanced method to maximize pain relief while minimizing side effects and risks.

However, the opioid epidemic challenges current attitudes toward pain management and necessitates the reexamination of the WHO analgesic ladder. One issue relates to the perceived priority of medical as opposed to surgical intervention for pain relief due to high risk of surgery and low risk of medications. Within the current interpretation of the ladder, it would be inappropriate to bypass a step and to use pain-relieving interventions, such as surgery, without trying opioids first.4 Although initially designed for cancer-related pain, the analgesic ladder now serves many pain types, including neuropathic pain, which often proves refractory to opioid-based management.6 Thus, in the experience of the authors, most patients initially presenting to a neurosurgeon for evaluation for possible surgical intervention have been managed with opioid medications for extended periods.

Practical Considerations in Surgical Management of Pain

Surgery for pain differs from many conventional operations, neurosurgical and others, aimed at elimination of the source of pain—such as, for example, appendectomy, spinal decompression, carpal tunnel release, or joint replacement. Instead, it is aimed at the pain-processing (nociceptive) system and includes destructive procedures (open or percutaneous ablations and transections), electrical neuromodulation (via cortical, deep-brain, spinal, and peripheral neurostimulation), and chemical neuromodulation (with implantable drug delivery systems). Quiz Ref IDNeurodestruction interrupts the pain-transmitting pathways by removing a peripheral nerve (neurectomy) or dorsal root ganglion (ganglionectomy), removing a sympathetic ganglion or cutting a nerve chain (sympathectomy), severing spinal or cranial nerve roots (rhizotomy), lesioning spinothalamic tracts or the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) within the spinal cord (cordotomy, DREZ myelotomy), or severing nerve tracts in the pain- processing centers of the brain (tractotomy, thalamotomy, cingulotomy).Quiz Ref IDElectrical neuromodulation relieves pain either by directly suppressing pain transmission (with a complete but reversible conductance block, as in cases of high-frequency peripheral nerve stimulation) or by activating inhibitory mechanisms (through production of paresthesias or through paresthesia-free paradigms, as in cases of spinal cord stimulation) via electrical stimulation of the peripheral nerves, dorsal root ganglia, dorsal columns of the spinal cord, deep cerebral structures (thalamic nuclei and periaqueductal and periventricular gray matter) or via electrical stimulation of the motor cortex using implantable electrodes that are usually connected to internal pulse generators or externally powered receivers. Chemical neuromodulation is based on continuous delivery of various medications (analgesics, local anesthetics, ion channel blockers, adrenergic agonists, or various combinations thereof) via implanted catheters, pumps, and ports.

Each modality has advantages and disadvantages. Neuromodulation, both chemical and electrical, tends to be reversible, adjustable, testable, and nondestructive. It also provides patients with real or perceived ability to control the treatment using dedicated remote controllers. Benefits might not be immediate, however, and expensive implantable hardware and multiple adjustments are usually required for long- term success.7 Neurodestruction, on the other hand, tends to bear more risk, as the procedural results are neither reversible nor adjustable. However, the advantages include immediate pain relief and relatively low cost in comparison to neuromodulation techniques, as there is no requirement for expensive implants and no subsequent adjustments. Due to the inherent plasticity of the nervous system, some of the destructive interventions are associated with a higher rate of pain relapse in the long-term and have been traditionally reserved for patients with shorter life expectancy.810

Each of these interventions has been used for decades. Due to cumulative surgical experience and advances in imaging techniques, the safety of surgery for pain has significantly improved. Percutaneous cordotomy with computed tomography (CT) guidance is safer than the open cordotomy of the 1950s.1014 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance, together with intraoperative neurophysiological testing, increases accuracy of deep-brain stimulation targeting to a fraction of a millimeter.15 Advancement from a single-contact electrode to 32-contact electrodes provides countless options for stimulation paradigms in cases of spinal cord stimulation. Thus, the prior argument that risk of surgery outweighed risk of opioid prescription, which previously predominated in the avoidance of surgical intervention for pain, no longer holds completely true, at least for neuromodulation.

Impact of Surgical Management of Pain

Given the scope of the opioid crisis, the potential impact of surgical intervention for pain is far-reaching, extending from patient-level to systems-level outcomes. Of the pain interventions available, perhaps the most studied to date is spinal cord stimulation (SCS), particularly in patients with chronic low-back pain or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The long-term success rate following conventional SCS is as high as 74%,16 and, in a retrospective study, 69% of the 130 patients with FBSS who were treated and continued with SCS during an average 6-year follow-up reported substantial improvement of symptoms.17 Additional prospective studies have shown that traditional and 10-kHz SCS also can reduce reliance on opioids for management of pain,18,19 and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have similarly reported stable or reduced medication use in patients treated with SCS.2022 For example, a recent meta-analysis of 63 studies found a 58% average level of pain relief at 24 months postoperatively.23 Importantly, retrospective studies have found patient outcomes following SCS to be time dependent, with earlier intervention linked to better symptom relief.16,24,25 These findings suggest that the stepwise approach of the analgesic ladder could play a role in delaying referral to neurosurgical evaluation.

From a public health perspective, the use of SCS in the treatment of FBSS is cost effective, as it is one of the conditions most commonly treated with surgical intervention for pain management. FBSS may occur in 5% to 40% of all patients who undergo lumbosacral spine surgery for back pain,26,27 contributing to the estimated $19.8 billion in indirect costs of back pain.28Quiz Ref IDDespite evidence of the clinical efficacy and low complication rates of SCS,29 SCS remains largely underused: an analysis of 16 455 patients with FBSS found that only 2.4% underwent SCS implantation,30 and a later study of 122 827 FBSS patients identified 4.3% who underwent SCS.31 The same study found that SCS implantation results in a short- term increase in costs at 1 year but significantly decreased annual cumulative costs at 9-year follow- up.31 Furthermore, SCS for patients with FBSS has been shown to be cost-effective for all payers (commercial insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) beginning at 2 years and extending through 9 years.32Quiz Ref IDAdditional studies have demonstrated the cost effectiveness of SCS not only in FBSS30,33 but also in other indicated pathologies, such as chronic back and limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral arterial disease, and refractory angina pectoris.3436 In a value-based health care economy, using interventions to provide the most value and benefit to the patient while incurring the least expense over time is essential.

Ethical Considerations and Paradigm Shift

Despite advances, surgical treatments remain a final step in pain management, typically after all other approaches fail.37 With concerns growing regarding complications of opioid use in an age of developing technology and surgical offerings, a paradigm shift in pain management away from the WHO analgesic ladder toward earlier surgical intervention could have profound implications for patients and public health. Over time, surgical procedures have become more precise, less invasive, and better understood and recognized by both patients and their physicians. The ethical dilemma of beneficence vs nonmaleficence is not limited to weighing the advantages and risks of surgery alone. The risks of surgery avoidance should also be considered, given that medical (“conservative”) treatments can cause tolerance, dependence, or clinical side effects, as seen with most analgesic regimens, opioid or otherwise. The possibility of long-term pain relief and associated increase in functionality and improvement in quality of life justifies surgery as an earlier treatment option, perhaps before opioids are introduced.

Paramount to good pain management, however, is a discussion with the patient about operative management of pain as part of a spectrum of available treatments and a multimodal approach to pain control. Establishing an institutional multidisciplinary team, which could include interested primary care practitioners, pain specialists, neurosurgeons, and ethicists, with regular conferences on the comprehensive management plans of patients with pain syndromes could facilitate reliance on a multimodal approach rather than on the standard stepwise ladder. In a broader sense, it would be important to have clinical ethicists provide input on (1) the value and consequences of choosing surgery vs nonsurgical options for pain management, (2) the risk of delay in offering surgery due to concerns about surgical complications vs the risk of initiating or continuing medical treatment, and (3) the value of introducing various alternative management strategies early with the patient's involvement in decision-making process. Ultimately, providing an individualized treatment plan for patients and their pain control is critical,38 and, in adherence to Beauchamp and Childress' concept of respect for patient autonomy,39 patients have a right to choose their treatments and should be presented with objective pros and cons of each treatment approach, including surgery for pain, especially when considering the initiation of opioid medications.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based, video CME, audio CME, visuals, and more. Learn more

Article Information

AMA Journal of Ethics

AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(8):E695-701.

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships.

Author Information:

  • Laura Stone McGuire, MD is a resident physician within the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Illinois at Chicago in Chicago, Illinois; Konstantin Slavin, MD is a neurosurgeon and professor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago in Chicago, Illinois, who specializes in functional neurosurgery. He is a past president of the American Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, the secretary of the International Neuromodulation Society, and the vice president of the World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery.

World Health. Cancer pain relief: with a guide to opioid availability. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1996. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/37896/1/9241544821.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2020.
Campbell  JN.  APS 1995 Presidential address.  Pain Forum. 1996;5(1):85–88.Google ScholarCrossref
Morone  NE, Weiner  DK.  Pain as the fifth vital sign: exposing the vital need for pain education.  Clin Ther. 2013;35(11):1728–1732.Google ScholarCrossref
Vargas-Schaffer  G.  Is the WHO analgesic ladder still valid? Twenty-four years of experience.  Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(6):514–517.Google Scholar
Pergolizzi  JV  Jr, Raffa  RB.  The WHO pain ladder: do we need another step?  Pract Pain Manag. 2014;14(1):42–52.Google Scholar
Dworkin  RH, O'Connor  AB, Backonja  M,  et al.  Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: evidence-based recommendations.  Pain. 2007;132(3):237–251.Google ScholarCrossref
Slavin  KV. Epidural spinal cord stimulation: indications and technique. In: Schulder  M, ed.  Handbook of Functional and Stereotactic Surgery. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2002:417–430.
Crul  BJ, Blok  LM, van Egmond  J, van Dongen  RT.  The present role of percutaneous cervical cordotomy for the treatment of cancer pain.  J Headache Pain. 2005;6(1):24–29.Google ScholarCrossref
Berger  A, Hochberg  U, Zegerman  A, Tellem  R, Strauss  I.  Neurosurgical ablative procedures for intractable cancer pain  [published online ahead of print, May 10 , 2019].  J Neurosurg.Google Scholar
Teoli  D, An  J. Cordotomy. In:  StatPearls [internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535446/. Updated April 5, 2020. Accessed June 9, 2020.
Bekar  A, Taskapilioğlu  MO, Eser  P, Bilgin  H.  CT-guided high-level percutaneous cervical cordotomy for intractable cancer pain.  Turk Neurosurg. 2017;27(1):133–137.Google Scholar
Kanpolat  Y, Ozdemir  M, Al-Beyati  E.  CT-guided percutaneous cordotomy for intractable pain in what is more than a disease: lung malignancies.  Turk Neurosurg. 2013;23(1):81–87.Google Scholar
Sanders  M, Zuurmond  W.  Safety of unilateral and bilateral percutaneous cervical cordotomy in 80 terminally ill cancer patients.  J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(6):1509–1512.Google ScholarCrossref
Shepherd  TM, Hoch  MJ, Cohen  BA,  et al.  Palliative CT-guided cordotomy for medically intractable pain in patients with cancer.  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(2):387–390.Google ScholarCrossref
Lee  PS, Richardson  RM.  Interventional MRI-guided deep brain stimulation lead implantation.  Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017;28(4):535–544.Google ScholarCrossref
Kumar  K, Hunter  G, Demeria  D.  Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and present status, a 22-year experience.  Neurosurgery. 2006;58(3):481–496.Google ScholarCrossref
Nissen  M, Ikäheimo  TM, Huttunen  J, Leinonen  V, von Und Zu Fraunberg  M.  Long-term outcome of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome: 20 years of experience with 224 consecutive patients.  Neurosurgery. 2019;84(5):1011–1018.Google ScholarCrossref
Al-Kaisy  A, Van Buyten  JP, Carganillo  R,  et al.  10 kHz SCS therapy for chronic pain, effects on opioid usage: post hoc analysis of data from two prospective studies.  Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):11441.Google ScholarCrossref
North  RB, Kidd  DH, Farrokhi  F, Piantadosi  SA.  Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial.  Neurosurgery. 2005;56(1):98–106.Google ScholarCrossref
Cameron  T.  Safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a 20-year literature review.  J Neurosurg. 2004;100(Spine 3):254-267.Google Scholar
Taylor  RS, Van Buyten  JP, Buchser  E.  Spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review and analysis of prognostic factors.  Spine. 2005;30(1):152–160.Google ScholarCrossref
Pollard  EM, Lamer  TJ, Moeschler  SM,  et al.  The effect of spinal cord stimulation on pain medication reduction in intractable spine and limb pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis.  J Pain Res. 2019;12:1311–1324.Google ScholarCrossref
Taylor  RS, Desai  MJ, Rigoard  P, Taylor  RJ.  Predictors of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation in chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.  Pain Pract. 2014;14(6):489–505.Google ScholarCrossref
Kumar  K, Rizvi  S, Nguyen  R, Abbas  M, Bishop  S, Murthy  V.  Impact of wait times on spinal cord stimulation therapy outcomes.  Pain Pract. 2014;14(8):709–720.Google ScholarCrossref
Kumar  K, Wilson  JR.  Factors affecting spinal cord stimulation outcome in chronic benign pain with suggestions to improve success rate.  Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2007;97(pt 1):91–99.Google Scholar
Fritsch  EW, Heisel  J, Rupp  S.  The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments.  Spine. 1996;21(5):626–633.Google ScholarCrossref
North  RB, Campbell  JN, James  CS,  et al.  Failed back surgery syndrome: 5-year follow-up in 102 patients undergoing repeated operation.  Neurosurgery. 1991;28(5):685–690.Google ScholarCrossref
Stewart  WF, Ricci  JA, Chee  E, Morganstein  D, Lipton  R.  Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce.  JAMA. 2003;290(18):2443–2454.Google ScholarCrossref
Lad  SP, Babu  R, Bagley  JH,  et al.  Utilization of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.  Spine. 2014;39(12):e719–e727.Google ScholarCrossref
Zucco  F, Ciampichini  R, Lavano  A,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: results from the PRECISE Study.  Neuromodulation. 2015;18(4):266–276.Google ScholarCrossref
Farber  SH, Han  JL, Elsamadicy  AA,  et al.  Long-term cost utility of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.  Pain Physician. 2017;20(6):e797–e805.Google Scholar
Elsamadicy  AA, Farber  SH, Yang  S,  et al.  Impact of insurance provider on overall costs in failed back surgery syndrome: a cost study of 122,827 patients.  Neuromodulation. 2017;20(4):354–360.Google ScholarCrossref
Taylor  RS, Ryan  J, O'Donnell  R, Eldabe  S, Kumar  K, North  RB.  The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.  Clin J Pain. 2010;26(6):463–469.Google ScholarCrossref
Hoelscher  C, Riley  J, Wu  C, Sharan  A.  Cost-effectiveness data regarding spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.  Spine. 2017;42(suppl 14):S72–S79.Google Scholar
Kumar  K, Rizvi  S.  Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy in management of chronic pain.  Pain Med. 2013;14(11):1631–1649.Google ScholarCrossref
Kemler  MA, Raphael  JH, Bentley  A, Taylor  RS.  The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome.  Value Health. 2010;13(6):735–742.Google ScholarCrossref
Rosenow  JM, Slavin  KV. Destructive neurosurgical procedures for treatment of chronic pain. In: Bajwa  ZH, Wootton  RJ, Warfield  CA, eds.  Principles and Practice of Pain Medicine. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2017:840–847.
Mercadante  S.  Management of cancer pain.  Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5(suppl 1):S31–S35.Google Scholar
Beauchamp  TL, Childress  JF.  Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.
AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

  • 1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
  • 1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • 1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • 1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
  • 1.00 credit toward the CME [and Self-Assessment requirements] of the American Board of Surgery’s Continuous Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.


Name Your Search

Save Search

Lookup An Activity


My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.


My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.