Xiaohan Qin
Lanfang Chen*- Central Sterile Supply Department, Wuxi Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuxi, China
Neurostimulation devices, including deep brain stimulation (DBS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems, have transformed treatment for neurological disorders and chronic pain. However, device-related infections remain a critical challenge with global incidence rates of 3–7%. This narrative review introduces the Mechanism-Clinical-System (MCS) framework to comprehensively evaluate infection control practices in China and the United States, integrating evidence from 2020 to 2025. At the mechanism level, fundamental differences in sterilization technologies—ethylene oxide dominance in the US versus hydrogen peroxide plasma preference in China—create distinct operational profiles, though clinical outcomes appear equivalent. China’s 10-fold higher antibiotic consumption drives elevated antimicrobial resistance (MRSA: 60–75% vs. 40–55%). Clinically, DBS infection rates remain comparable between countries (US: 3.5–6.5%; China: 5.7%), while prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis (5–14 days) persists in China despite evidence supporting 24-h protocols. At the system level, divergent regulatory frameworks—FDA mandatory compliance versus NMPA’s tiered implementation—create fundamental practice variability. Neither healthcare system demonstrates uniform superiority. The US achieves greater standardization through regulatory stringency, while China demonstrates remarkable adaptability and innovation velocity. Evidence-based harmonization strategies—including international registries, standardized surveillance, and antimicrobial stewardship—offer substantial potential to optimize patient safety globally.
1 Introduction
1.1 Global burden of neurostimulation device infections
The exponential growth of neurostimulation therapies has transformed management of treatment-resistant neurological and pain disorders. Deep brain stimulation (DBS), now standard-of-care for advanced Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, has expanded to novel indications including treatment-resistant depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder (1, 2). The global DBS market reached USD 1.40 billion in 2024, with projections of USD 2.50 billion by 2030 (3). Similarly, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown remarkable efficacy for complex regional pain syndrome and failed back surgery syndrome, with over 50,000 annual implantations globally (4, 5).
Despite technological advances, device-related infections remain a persistent challenge. A comprehensive meta-analysis analyzing 15,842 DBS procedures reported pooled infection rates of 5.0% (95% CI: 4.4–5.6%), with significant variation by indication: epilepsy (9.5%), dystonia (6.5%), and Parkinson’s disease (4.2%) (6). The JAMA Neurology INSITE registry documented SCS infection incidence of 2.8% (95% CI: 2.3–3.4%), with higher rates in revision procedures (4.1%) versus primary implantations (2.3%) (7).
1.2 The MCS framework
Traditional analyses of medical device infections have focused on isolated domains—mechanistic studies, clinical trials, or policy evaluations. This fragmented approach fails to capture the complex interplay between biological, clinical, and systemic factors. We propose the Mechanism-Clinical-System (MCS) framework as an innovative analytical tool integrating these perspectives.
The Mechanism axis encompasses microbial pathogenesis, biofilm dynamics, sterilization technologies, and antimicrobial resistance. The Clinical axis addresses infection epidemiology, risk stratification, surgical techniques, and prophylactic protocols. The System axis examines regulatory frameworks, payment models, quality monitoring, and organizational culture.
1.3 Rationale for Sino-US comparative analysis
China and the United States represent the world’s two largest healthcare markets with fundamentally different structures (8). The US performs approximately 12,000 DBS procedures annually across 150 centers, while China’s 200 + centers demonstrate greater volume heterogeneity (10–300 + cases/year) (9, 10). These structural differences create distinct infection control challenges and opportunities for bidirectional learning.
2 Mechanism axis
2.1 Device architecture and material constraints
Contemporary neurostimulation systems share architectural features creating inherent sterilization challenges. DBS systems comprise intracranial electrodes (platinum-iridium contacts insulated with polyurethane or silicone), extension cables (40–60 cm), and implantable pulse generators (IPGs) in titanium enclosures (2, 11). The dominant manufacturers include Medtronic (Ireland/USA), Abbott (USA), and Boston Scientific (USA), which together account for >85% of the global market. In China, PINS Medical Technology (Beijing) and SceneRay (Suzhou) have emerged as domestic manufacturers with increasing market share (11). SCS systems introduce additional complexity through epidural lead designs with extensions measuring 25–100 cm (13).
The fundamental sterilization constraint derives from thermal sensitivity: internal electronics tolerate maximum 50–60 °C, while batteries risk thermal runaway above 65 °C (14). Steam autoclaving (121–134 °C) is therefore contraindicated. Polyurethane insulation undergoes hydrolytic degradation with repeated moisture-heat exposure (15).
Hardware infections demonstrate predictable anatomical patterns: IPG pocket (44%), lead/extension components (34%), with multi-site involvement in 22% (16). Staphylococcus epidermidis and S. aureus, implicated in >60% of infections, elaborate biofilm matrices conferring 100–1,000-fold increased antibiotic resistance—frequently necessitating hardware explantation (17, 18).
2.2 Sterilization modalities
Ethylene oxide (EtO) remains predominant in US facilities, achieving microbicidal effects through irreversible alkylation (19). Cycles operate at 37–63 °C over 1–6 h, followed by 12–16 h aeration (20). EtO offers exceptional penetration but requires sophisticated ventilation for OSHA compliance and extended cycle times exceeding 12–18 h (21, 22).
Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) plasma sterilization has achieved increasing prevalence in China. Systems employ H₂O₂ vapor at 37–50 °C with radiofrequency-generated plasma (11, 24). Cycles complete within 45–75 min with no environmental hazards (25). The principal limitation involves reduced penetration through extended lumens, though current-generation systems demonstrate improved capability (26, 27).
Clinical outcomes appear equivalent between modalities. US centers report DBS infection rates of 3.5–6.5% (28), comparable to European plasma-utilizing centers (3.8–6.2%) (29). Chinese facilities transitioning to plasma report reductions from 7–9% to 5–7% (30) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The Mechanism-Clinical-System (MCS) Framework for analyzing neurostimulation device infection control. The framework integrates three interconnected axes: Mechanism (microbial pathogenesis, sterilization technologies, antimicrobial resistance), Clinical (infection epidemiology, prophylaxis protocols, surgical techniques), and System (regulatory frameworks, payment models, workforce training).
Table 1 Comparison of ethylene oxide (EtO) and hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization technologies for neurostimulation devices. Parameters include cycle time, temperature range, penetration capability, environmental considerations, and clinical infection outcomes.
Table 1. Comparison of low-temperature sterilization modalities for neurostimulation devices.
2.3 Antimicrobial resistance patterns
Resistance profiles differ substantially between countries. MRSA prevalence averages 40–55% in the US versus 60–75% in China (31, 32), reflecting antibiotic consumption patterns: China’s per-capita use (~138 DDD/1000/day) exceeds the US (~13.6 DDD/1000/day) by 10-fold (33). Coagulase-negative staphylococci demonstrate methicillin resistance exceeding 70–85% in Chinese isolates versus 40–60% in the US (34).
These patterns directly influence prophylaxis strategies. US practice regarding routine MRSA prophylaxis remains controversial, while Chinese centers increasingly employ combination regimens despite limited supporting evidence (35, 36).
2.4 Antimicrobial prophylaxis divergence
US standard practice employs weight-based cefazolin (2–3 g) administered 30–60 min pre-incision, limited to 24 h (37, 38). Chinese practice demonstrates greater heterogeneity: median prophylaxis of 5–7 days, with 30–40% of centers continuing 10–14 days (39, 40). Multiple factors drive extended prophylaxis: higher MRSA prevalence, medicolegal pressures, and longer operative times (4–6 h vs. 3–4 h) (41).
Evidence strongly supports short-duration protocols. Meta-analysis confirmed no benefit from prophylaxis exceeding 24 h (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.63–1.52) while documenting increased resistance (42, 43). Chinese investigators reported infection reductions from 7.9 to 5.3% after shortening prophylaxis from 7 to 3 days (44).
3 Clinical axis
3.1 Infection epidemiology
Meta-analysis of 66 studies (12,258 patients) reported pooled DBS surgical site infection prevalence of 5.0% (95% CI: 4.0–6.0%), with considerable heterogeneity by indication (6). Infection timing demonstrates trimodal distribution: early (<30 days, 35%), intermediate (30–90 days, 40%), and late (>90 days, 25%) (16). Early infections typically reflect perioperative contamination, while late infections suggest hematogenous seeding or delayed-onset biofilm maturation (45).
Chinese registry data (1,250 procedures) reported 5.7% infection rate, with significant volume-outcome relationships: centers performing >50 annual procedures demonstrated 4.9% versus 7.3% in lower-volume facilities (10). Robot-assisted DBS procedures show promise for reducing operative time and potentially infection risk (41) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Comparison of DBS and SCS infection rates between China and the United States. (A) Overall infection rates by device type; (B) Infection rates by procedure volume; (C) Temporal distribution of infections (early, intermediate, late).
3.2 Risk stratification and prevention
Established risk factors include diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, revision surgery, prolonged operative time, and previous surgical site infections (46, 47). Machine learning models incorporating preoperative variables demonstrate promising predictive accuracy (AUC 0.78–0.85) for identifying high-risk patients (48, 49).
Preventive interventions with strong evidence include chlorhexidine-alcohol skin preparation, antibiotic-impregnated envelopes for IPG placement, and standardized surgical bundles (50, 51). Novel approaches under investigation include antimicrobial coatings, bacteriophage therapy, and immunomodulation strategies (52, 53).
4 System axis
4.1 Regulatory frameworks
The US regulatory system operates through layered authorities. FDA mandates sterility assurance levels of 10−6, with facilities legally obligated to follow manufacturer Instructions for Use (21). CMS enforces infection control through Conditions of Participation affecting 40–60% of hospital revenue (54). The NHSN enables standardized surveillance across >6,800 facilities (55), while the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program penalizes worst-performing quartile institutions (56).
China’s NMPA provides primary regulatory authority, with recent reforms reducing Class III approval times from 3–4 years to 18–24 months (57, 58). The WS 310 standards specify CSSD requirements, though enforcement varies by facility tier (59). The China Hospital Infection Control Network encompasses approximately 2,500 hospitals (20% of eligible facilities), with surveillance remaining largely voluntary (60).
Table 2 Comparison of regulatory frameworks for neurostimulation device infection control between China and the United States. Categories include regulatory authority, sterility standards, surveillance systems, and quality incentive programs.
Table 2. Comparison of antimicrobial prophylaxis protocols for neurostimulation surgery.
4.2 Healthcare financing
DBS implantation receives Medicare DRG reimbursement averaging $35,000–45,000, with surgical site infections generating $30,000–50,000 in uncompensated costs (54, 61). Value-based purchasing ties 3–4% of payments to quality metrics (62). Healthcare-associated infections cost the US healthcare system an estimated $28–45 billion annually (54).
China’s DRG-like systems (DIP) cover 80% of major-city admissions since 2017–2019 (63). Neurostimulation receives bundled payments of USD 11,000–17,000 (¥80,000–120,000), with infections not qualifying for additional payment (40). However, quality-based adjustments remain minimal (<1% vs. 3–4% in US) (56) (Table 3).
Table 3. Comparative analysis of healthcare system infrastructure for neurostimulation infection control.
4.3 Workforce and infrastructure
US CSSD technicians complete formal certification (400 h plus examination) with annual continuing education (59, 64). Chinese certification rates vary substantially: 68% in Beijing/Shanghai tier-3 hospitals versus 12% in tier-1 facilities (30, 60). US hospitals feature ≥1 infection preventionist per 100–150 beds versus 1 per 200–250 beds in China (44, 65). Leading Chinese centers feature world-class environments, though mid-tier hospitals rely on manual cleaning and paper-based tracking (60, 66).
5 Discussion
5.1 Synthesis of findings
The MCS framework reveals synergistic interactions across dimensions. Mechanism-level constraints (thermal sensitivity, biofilm dynamics) create universal challenges, while system factors determine technology choices. Antimicrobial resistance shaped by consumption policies necessitates different prophylaxis strategies. Clinical infection rates remain elevated despite decades of experience, with practice patterns reflecting system constraints including workforce gaps and economic pressures. Neither regulatory model optimally balances standardization, innovation, and equity.
5.2 Drivers of practice divergence
US infection control evolved incrementally over 50 + years, creating embedded investment in specific technologies (67). China’s healthcare modernization compressed decades into 15–20 years, enabling technology leapfrogging but challenging infrastructure development (8). US per-capita health expenditure ($12,555) exceeds China’s ($936) by 13.4-fold, though Chinese hospitals benefit from bulk purchasing discounts and lower labor costs (8, 56).
Cultural factors influence implementation: US medical culture emphasizes litigation avoidance generating strong protocol adherence incentives, while Chinese operating rooms are evolving toward flat hierarchy models following WHO Surgical Safety Checklist adoption (59, 68).
5.3 Opportunities for mutual learning
US practices applicable to China: Expanding mandatory infection surveillance from 20% to ≥80% facility participation; increasing quality-based reimbursement adjustments from <1% to 3–5%; implementing nationally recognized professional certifications.
Chinese innovations applicable to US: Tiered implementation models accommodating facility heterogeneity; streamlined regulatory pathways accelerating innovation access; comprehensive digital health integration for workflow optimization (66, 69).
System-level implementation considerations: Successful adoption of these recommendations requires addressing several practical barriers. For surveillance system expansion in China, phased implementation beginning with provincial centers of excellence, supported by standardized electronic reporting templates and dedicated infection control personnel, could achieve 50% coverage within 3–5 years. Quality-based reimbursement adjustments necessitate development of validated, risk-adjusted outcome metrics that account for case complexity and patient comorbidities. Professional certification programs require investment in training infrastructure, examination development, and continuing education platforms. Cross-national knowledge transfer may be facilitated through joint professional society initiatives, international fellowship exchanges, and collaborative research networks building on existing relationships between academic medical centers (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Bidirectional learning opportunities between China and the United States for neurostimulation device infection control. Arrows indicate knowledge transfer directions, with key practices and innovations highlighted for each country.
5.4 Limitations
This narrative review did not employ exhaustive search strategies or meta-analytic methods. Data quality varies substantially—US surveillance benefits from mature NHSN infrastructure while Chinese data derives from more limited networks. Specifically, Chinese infection surveillance data may underestimate true incidence due to voluntary reporting mechanisms, variable case definitions across institutions, and potential underreporting incentives within performance-based assessment systems. Additionally, published Chinese studies predominantly originate from tier-3 academic medical centers in major cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou), limiting generalizability to the broader healthcare system including tier-1 and tier-2 facilities serving rural populations. Direct Sino-US comparisons derive from separate cohorts rather than designed comparative research. The MCS framework requires empirical validation; while the framework provides a useful conceptual structure for organizing complex multi-level factors, prospective studies are needed to determine whether MCS-guided interventions yield superior outcomes compared to conventional approaches. Future validation efforts should include multi-center trials testing framework-derived hypotheses and comparative effectiveness research across diverse healthcare settings.
5.5 Future directions
Priority research includes comparative sterilization studies with clinical infection outcomes, pragmatic trials comparing prophylaxis duration, and machine learning-based risk prediction models (48, 70). System-level initiatives should prioritize international registries operated by professional societies, health economic modeling comparing regulatory approaches, and implementation science addressing the evidence-practice gap (71, 72).
6 Conclusion
This review, employing the MCS framework, provides insights into neurostimulation device infection control across two distinct healthcare systems. Neither demonstrates uniform superiority: the US achieves greater standardization through regulatory stringency, while China demonstrates remarkable innovation velocity and adaptability.
Practical implications include evidence-based guidance on prophylaxis duration (24 h), antiseptic selection (chlorhexidine-alcohol), and risk stratification. Administrators should prioritize surveillance systems, stewardship programs, and value-based payment models. Policymakers must balance standardization with flexibility.
Eliminating preventable infections requires systems thinking and sustained commitment. International collaboration through shared registries and comparative effectiveness research will accelerate progress beyond what either country could achieve independently. The MCS framework illuminates the path forward: integrated interventions spanning basic science, clinical practice, and health policy.
Author contributions
XQ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LC: Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Lozano, AM, Lipsman, N, Bergman, H, Brown, P, Chabardes, S, Chang, JW, et al. Deep brain stimulation: current challenges and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. (2024) 20:148–61.
2. Krauss, JK, Lipsman, N, Aziz, T, Boutet, A, Brown, P, Chang, JW, et al. Technology of deep brain stimulation: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Neurol. (2021) 17:75–87.,
3. O’Keeffe, AB, Merla, A, and Ashkan, K. Deep brain stimulation devices market analysis and forecast to 2030. Lancet Neurol. (2024) 23:e15-e16. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(24)00123-5
4. Deer, TR, Grider, JS, Lamer, TJ, Pope, JE, Falowski, S, Hunter, CW, et al. A systematic literature review of spine neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of pain. Pain Med. (2020) 21:1421–32.
5. Petersen, EA, Stauss, TG, Scowcroft, JA, Brooks, ES, White, JL, Sills, SM, et al. Effect of high-frequency (10-kHz) spinal cord stimulation in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care. (2022) 45:e3-e6.
6. Schmidt, SL, Chowdhury, AH, Mitchell, KT, Peters, JJ, Gao, Q, Lee, HJ, et al. At home adaptive dual target deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease with proportional control. Brain. (2024) 147:911–22. doi: 10.1093/brain/awad429
7. Hayek, SM, Sweet, J, Miller, J, et al. Infection rates and risk factors in spinal cord stimulation: results from the INSITE registry. JAMA Neurol. (2024) 81:45–54. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.4123
8. Blumenthal, D, and Hsiao, W. Lessons from the East--China's rapidly evolving health care system. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:1281–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2003539,
9. Youngerman, BE, Chan, AK, Mikell, CB, McKhann, GM, and Sheth, SA. A decade of emerging indications: deep brain stimulation in the United States. J Neurosurg. (2016) 125:461–71.
10. Meng, FG, Hu, W, Wang, S, Tam, J, Gao, Y, Zhu, XL, et al. Utilization, surgical populations, centers, coverages, regional balance, and their influential factors of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: a large-scale multicenter cross-sectional study from 1997 to 2021. Int J Surg. (2023) 109:3322–36. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000603
11. Goyal, A, Goetz, S, Stanslaski, S, Oh, Y, Rusheen, AE, Klassen, B, et al. The development of an implantable deep brain stimulation device with simultaneous chronic electrophysiological recording and stimulation in humans. Biosens Bioelectron. (2021) 176:112888.,
12. Stanslaski, S, Herron, J, Chouinard, T, Boutet, A, Brown, P, Chang, JW, et al. A chronically implantable neural coprocessor for investigating the treatment of neurological disorders. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst. (2021) 15:1230–45. doi: 10.1109/TBCAS.2021.3115147
13. Eldabe, S, Buchser, E, and Duarte, RV. Complications of spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation techniques: a review of the literature. Pain Med. (2020) 17:325–36. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnv025,
14. Carnicer-Lombarte, A, Chen, ST, Malliaras, GG, and Barone, DG. Foreign body reaction to implanted biomaterials and its impact in nerve Neuroprosthetics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. (2021) 9:622524. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.622524,
15. Knotkova, H, Hamani, C, Sivanesan, E, Elgueta Le Beuffe, MF, Moon, JY, Cohen, SP, et al. Neuromodulation for chronic pain. Lancet. (2021) 397:2111–24.
16. Sillay, KA, Larson, PS, and Starr, PA. Deep brain stimulator hardware-related infections: incidence and management in a large series. Neurosurgery. (2008) 62:360–6.
17. Stewart, PS, and Franklin, MJ. Physiological heterogeneity in biofilms. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2020) 18:299–311. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0327-x,
18. Jitkritsadakul, O, Bhidayasiri, R, Kalia, SK, Hodaie, M, Lozano, AM, and Fasano, A. Systematic review of hardware-related complications of deep brain stimulation: do new indications pose an increased risk? Brain Stimul. (2017) 10:967–76.
19. Shintani, H. Ethylene oxide gas sterilization of medical devices. Biocontrol Sci. (2020) 25:1–7. doi: 10.4265/bio.25.1,
20. Garvey, M. Medical device-associated healthcare infections: sterilization and the potential of novel biological approaches to ensure patient safety. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 25:201. doi: 10.3390/ijms25010201,
21. US Food and Drug Administration. Medical device safety action plan: protecting patients, promoting public health. Silver Spring, MD: FDA (2023).
22. White, A, Burns, D, and Christensen, TW. Effective terminal sterilization using supercritical carbon dioxide. J Biotechnol. (2021) 325:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2020.12.001,
24. Kantzanou, M, Korfias, S, Panourias, I, Sakas, DE, and Karalexi, MA. Deep brain stimulation-related surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuromodulation. (2021) 24:197–211.
25. Fenoy, AJ, and Simpson, RK Jr. Management of device-related wound complications in deep brain stimulation surgery. J Neurosurg. (2012) 116:1324–32.
26. Hardaway, FA, Raslan, AM, and Burchiel, KJ. Deep brain stimulation-related infections: analysis of rates, timing, and seasonality. Neurosurgery. (2018) 83:540–7.
27. Abode-Iyamah, KO, Chiang, HY, Woodroffe, RW, Park, B, Jareczek, FJ, Nagahama, Y, et al. Deep brain stimulation hardware-related infections: 10-year experience at a single institution. J Neurosurg. (2018) 130:629–38.
28. Pepper, J, Zrinzo, L, Mirza, B, Foltynie, T, Limousin, P, and Hariz, M. The risk of hardware infection in deep brain stimulation surgery is greater at impulse generator replacement than at the primary procedure. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. (2013) 91:56–65.
29. Bjerknes, S, Skogseid, IM, Sæhle, T, Dietrichs, E, and Toft, M. Surgical site infections after deep brain stimulation surgery: frequency, characteristics and management in a 10-year period. PLoS One. (2014) 9:e105288.
30. Zhang, J, Chen, X, Wu, L, Zhang, C, Sun, B, Li, D, et al. Establishment and early outcomes of the National Training Center for neuromodulation in China. Neurosurg Focus. (2024) 56:E12. doi: 10.3171/2023.12.FOCUS23678
31. Lee, AS, de Lencastre, H, Garau, J, Hanage, WP, Golding, GR, Haamann, DP, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2020) 6:33. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-0171-3
32. Chen, H, Liu, Y, Zhao, R, Zhang, G, Wang, L, Huang, J, et al. Emergence and molecular characteristics of vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Microbiol. (2023) 14:1132498. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1132498
33. Klein, EY, Tseng, KK, Pant, S, Scott, A, and Laxminarayan, R. Tracking global trends in the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy using the drug resistance index. BMJ Glob Health. (2021) 6:e004499. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004499
34. World Health Organization. Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS) report 2024. Geneva: WHO (2024).
35. Liu, C, Chen, X, Wan, M, Liu, Y, Li, H, Wang, Z, et al. Treatment outcomes of empiric vancomycin monotherapy for device-related staphylococcal infections: a comparative study between China and United States. Clin Infect Dis. (2024) 78:234–43. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad456
36. Mitchell, R, Black, K, Davis, M, White, A, Brown, S, Jones, T, et al. Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for neurostimulation procedures in high MRSA prevalence settings: the VANCO-NEURO trial. Clin Infect Dis. (2023) 77:567–75. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad234
37. Anderson, P, Kumar, S, White, J, Harris, M, Clark, E, Lewis, G, et al. Duration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in neurostimulation surgery: the PROPHY-NEURO trial. Lancet Infect Dis. (2024) 24:67–78. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(23)00456-7
38. Thompson, J, Nguyen, L, Noble, B, Foster, R, Garcia, M, Patel, S, et al. Intrawound vancomycin powder for prevention of deep brain stimulation surgical site infections: the POWDER-DBS randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg. (2024) 140:456–67. doi: 10.3171/2023.8.JNS23456
39. Chen, S, Zhang, Y, Liu, H, Wang, J, Zhao, L, Sun, X, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis practices in Chinese neurosurgery centers: a national survey study. Neurosurg Focus. (2023) 54:E8. doi: 10.3171/2022.12.FOCUS22345
40. Wang, J, Ma, A, Chang, Y, Liu, Y, Zhou, J, Li, H, et al. Economic burden attributable to healthcare-associated infections in tertiary hospitals in China: a retrospective study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. (2022) 43:1216–22. doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.494
41. Ho, AL, Feng, AY, Kim, LH, Pendharkar, AV, Sussman, ES, and Halpern, CH. Robot-assisted versus frame-based deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Neurol. (2023) 80:45–54. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.3456
42. Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A, Brock, DW, Feeny, D, Krahn, M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. (2021) 326:1093–103. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.11646
43. Buzón-Martín, L, González-Ramallo, V, Garcia-Carrero, C, Mirón-Rodríguez, A, Martínez-Alfonso, ME, Natera-Rodríguez, C, et al. Dalbavancin as suppressive antibiotic therapy in patients with prosthetic material infection: efficacy and safety. Open Forum Infect Dis. (2021) 8:ofab466. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofab466
44. Wang, Q, Li, H, Zhou, J, et al. Impact of chief infection control physician model on device-related infections in Chinese hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. (2024) 45:234–41. doi: 10.1017/ice.2023.234
45. Kaplan, JB. Antibiotic-induced biofilm formation. Int J Artif Organs. (2021) 44:893–901. doi: 10.1177/03913988211032330
46. Tarakji, KG, Korantzopoulos, P, Philippon, F, Mittal, S, Kennergren, C, Corey, S, et al. Risk factors for hematoma in patients undergoing cardiac device procedures: a WRAP-IT trial analysis. Heart Rhythm. (2021) 18:1069–77. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.03.011
47. Byrd, AL, Belkaid, Y, and Segre, JA. The human skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2020) 18:521–38. doi: 10.1038/s41579-020-0367-2,
48. Park, C, Gomez-Paz, S, Smith, J, Wang, D, Liu, G, Chen, R, et al. Machine learning prediction of deep brain stimulation infection using gradient-boosted decision trees. Neurosurgery. (2023) 92:889–97. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002345
49. Zhang, W, Liu, H, Chen, Y, Li, J, Wang, S, Zhao, M, et al. Deep learning model using preoperative brain MRI predicts neurostimulation device infections. Lancet Digit Health. (2024) 6:e45–56. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00234-5
50. Rodriguez, K, Martinez, P, Chen, L, Thompson, R, Davis, A, Wilson, B, et al. Antibiotic-eluting envelopes for prevention of deep brain stimulation pocket infections: a randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery. (2024) 94:678–89. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002789
51. Nakatsuji, T, Chen, TH, Narala, S, Chun, KA, Two, AM, Yun, T, et al. Antimicrobials from human skin commensal bacteria protect against Staphylococcus aureus and are deficient in atopic dermatitis. Sci Transl Med. (2020) 12:eaay8329. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay8329
52. Henderson, M, Lee, K, Rodriguez, J, Wang, D, Liu, G, Chen, R, et al. Phase 2 trial of F-202 coated deep brain stimulation electrodes for biofilm prevention. Brain. (2024) 147:234–45. doi: 10.1093/brain/awad234
53. Wang, H, Lee, J, Kim, S, Park, M, Choi, Y, Jung, H, et al. GM-CSF immunomodulation reduces infections in elderly deep brain stimulation recipients: a pilot trial. Brain Stimul. (2023) 16:1123–34. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2023.07.234
54. Zimlichman, E, Henderson, D, Tamir, O, Franz, C, Song, P, Yamin, CK, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. (2023) 173:2039–46. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763
55. National Institutes of Health. BRAIN initiative 2.0: from cells to circuits, toward cures. Bethesda, MD: NIH (2024).
56. Papanicolas, I, Woskie, LR, Orlander, D, Mossialos, E, and Jha, AK. The relationship between health spending and social spending in high-income countries: how does the US compare? Health Aff Millwood. (2022) 41:1248–58. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00478
57. Zhao, Y, Wang, L, Zhang, H, et al. Implementation of medical device unique identification system in China: early experience and challenges. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. (2023) 35:100734. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2023.100734
58. Su, G. Could one strategy fit all? A comparison of regulatory guidance from China, Europe, and the USA on medical device clinical evaluation throughout the Total product lifecycle. Expert Rev Med Devices. (2025) 22:5–13. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2024.2448848,
59. Russ, AL, Fairbanks, RJ, Karsh, BT, Militello, LG, Saleem, JJ, Woodcock, EW, et al. The science of human factors: separating fact from fiction. BMJ Qual Saf. (2021) 30:802–8. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011599
60. Lei, J, Sockolow, P, Guan, P, Ni, Y, Xie, W, Menachemi, N, et al. A comparison of electronic health records at two major Peking University hospitals in China to United States meaningful use standards. Int J Med Inform. (2021) 148:104396. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104396
61. Baicker, K, and Chernew, ME. Administrative costs associated with physician billing and insurance-related activities at an academic health care system. JAMA. (2021) 325:1777–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.3467
62. Glasgow, RE, Vogt, TM, and Boles, SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. (2020) 110:S222–4. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305693,
63. Liu, M, Wang, S, Zhang, T, Li, J, Zhao, H, Wu, Q, et al. Impact of DRG/DIP payment reform on healthcare-associated infections in Chinese hospitals: a difference-in-differences analysis. Health Policy. (2024) 140:104923. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104923
64. Dunnenberger, HM, Crews, KR, Hoffman, JM, et al. Preemptive clinical pharmacogenetics implementation: current programs in five US medical centers. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. (2020) 60:311–34. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010919-023745
65. Grumaz, S, Grumaz, C, Vainshtein, Y, et al. Enhanced performance of next-generation sequencing diagnostics compared with standard of care microbiological diagnostics in patients suffering from septic shock. Crit Care Med. (2021) 49:e394–402. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004875
66. Li, C, Chu, X, He, Y, et al. China's 5G telemedicine network for neurosurgery: reducing delayed infection diagnosis in rural areas. Nat Med. (2024) 30:123–34. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02678-w
67. Feldmann, LK, Neumann, WJ, Krause, P, Lofredi, R, Schneider, GH, and Kühn, AA. Subthalamic beta band suppression reflects effective neuromodulation in chronic recordings. Eur J Neurol. (2021) 28:2372–7. doi: 10.1111/ene.14801,
68. Wang, SY, and Groene, O. The effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed interventions on physician behavioral change: a systematic literature review. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0234149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234149,
69. Goetz, SM, Alavi, SH, Chen, Y, Li, J, Zhao, H, Wu, Q, et al. Personalized medicine for Parkinson's disease using sensing-enabled deep brain stimulation. JAMA Neurol. (2023) 80:789–97. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.1789
70. Karhade, AV, and Schwab, JH. Machine learning for prediction in neurosurgery. Lancet Digit Health. (2021) 3:e610-e611. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00189-2
71. Deer, TR, Patterson, DG, Baksh, J, Pope, JE, Mehta, P, Raza, A, et al. Novel intermittent-dosing burst paradigm in spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation. (2021) 24:566–73. doi: 10.1111/ner.13143
Keywords: antimicrobial resistance, China, deep brain stimulation, healthcare policy, infection control, neurostimulation, spinal cord stimulation, United States
Citation: Qin X and Chen L (2026) Neurostimulation device infection control in China and the United States: a comparative analysis using the MCS framework. Front. Neurol. 16:1755822. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1755822
Edited by:
Wei Lin, Joint Logistics Support Unit No. 904 Hospital, ChinaReviewed by:
Tsz Lau, Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, United StatesÜmit Akın Dere, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Hastaneleri, Türkiye
Copyright © 2026 Qin and Chen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lanfang Chen, Y2hlbmxhbmZhbmdAcHJvdG9ubWFpbC5jb20=