Advances of the modern medicine require reconceptualization of the existing approaches to therapy of neurological diseases not just from the standpoint of their radical treatment, but in terms of patients’ social integration, well-being, and mobility. This approach bears special significance to treatment of patients with spinal cord injuries (SCI) that are frequently complicated by spasticity. It is a known fact (Nagel et al., 2017) that up to 80% of people with spasticity are severely disabled; they suffer from serious movement impairment, trophic disturbances, pelvis dysfunction, as well as constant isolation, dependency on others, anxiety and depression, and are prone to suicide.

Standard surgical treatment for severe spasticity is implanting a baclofen pump (Boster et al., 2016, Boster et al., 2016, Saulino et al., 2016, Saulino et al., 2016) with a subsequent long-term intrathecal baclofen therapy (ITB). An alternative (Biktimirov et al., 2020, Nagel et al., 2017) is implanting a system for long-term spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

Choosing either of these two methods determines the effectiveness of rehabilitation and general success of treating patients with severe spasticity. There have been described (6–14) many different aspects of SCS or ITB as independent and effective methods of spasticity treatment, but papers, comparing and contrasting their effect and influence on quality of life, are almost non-existent (Biktimirov, Pak, Bryukhovetskiy, Sharma, & Sharma, 2021).

The objective of this study is to evaluate the changes in quality of life for patients with spasticity who have been treated with neuromodulation (SCS or ITB) for 12 months after the surgery, as well to compare the changes in quality of life for patients who have been treated with spinal cord stimulation and those who received long-term intrathecal baclofen therapy.