Dataset Information

Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica: 5-year results of a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study describes the 5 years' results of the Sciatica trial focused on pain, disability, (un)satisfactory recovery and predictors for unsatisfactory recovery.

Design

A randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Nine Dutch hospitals.

Participants

Five years' follow-up data from 231 of 283 patients (82%) were collected.

Intervention

Early surgery or an intended 6 months of conservative treatment.

Main outcome measures

Scores from Roland disability questionnaire, visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg and back pain and a Likert self-rating scale of global perceived recovery were analysed.

Results

There were no significant differences between groups on the 5 years' primary outcome scores. Despite at least 6 months of conservative treatment 46% of the conservatively allocated patients were treated surgically because of severe leg pain and disability. Forty-nine (21%) patients had an unsatisfactory recovery at 5 years and the recovery pattern showed that there was a variable group of 66 patients (31%) with at least one unsatisfactory outcome at 1, 2 or 5 years of follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression showed that age (>40; OR 2.42 (95% CI 1.16 to 5.02)), severity of leg pain (VAS >70; OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.69 to 6.54)) and the Mc Gill affective score (score >3; OR 6.23 (95% CI 2.23 to 17.38)) were the only significant predictors for an unsatisfactory outcome at 5 years.

Conclusions

In the long term, 8% of the patients with sciatica never showed any recovery and in at least 23%, sciatica appears to result in ongoing complaints, which fluctuate over time, irrespective of treatment. Prolonged conservative care might give patients a fair chance for pain and disability to resolve without surgery, but with the risk to receive delayed surgery after prolonged suffering of sciatica. Age above 40 years, severe leg pain at baseline and a higher affective Mc Gill pain score were predictors for unsatisfactory recovery. Trial Registry ISRCT No 26872154.

SUBMITTER: Lequin MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3657649 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica: 5-year results of a randomised controlled trial.

Lequin Michiel B MB Verbaan Dagmar D Jacobs Wilco C H WC Brand Ronald R Bouma Gerrit J GJ Vandertop William P WP Peul Wilco C WC

BMJ open 20130528 5

<h4>Objective</h4>This study describes the 5 years' results of the Sciatica trial focused on pain, disability, (un)satisfactory recovery and predictors for unsatisfactory recovery.<h4>Design</h4>A randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Nine Dutch hospitals.<h4>Participants</h4>Five years' follow-up data from 231 of 283 patients (82%) were collected.<h4>Intervention</h4>Early surgery or an intended 6 months of conservative treatment.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Scores from Roland disability ...[more]

PMID: 23793663

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design.SettingFour hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial.InterventionsPTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses.ResultsAt 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis.ConclusionsPTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica.Trial registrationNCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.

Project description:BackgroundSciatica is a condition that is characterised by radicular pain in the leg and primarily caused by a herniated lumbar intervertebral disk. In addition to leg pain, patients can experience back pain, leg numbness and leg weakness resulting in decreased productivity and social activity. The majority of sciatica cases recovers spontaneously and therefore patients are initially treated conservatively with oral pain medication. However, some patients experience intractable pain that severely impedes them and no consensus exists on the optimal conservative treatment to reduce this discomfort in the acute phase of sciatica. The aim of the TEIAS trial is to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) compared to treatment with standard pain medication.MethodsThis study is designed as a prospective, open-label, mono-centered, randomized controlled trial. Patients that visit their general practitioner with complaints of radicular leg pain and meet the selection criteria are asked to participate in this study. Eligible patients will be randomized to treatment with TEI or to treatment with standard oral pain medication. Treatment of TEI will comprise lidocaine with methylprednisolone acetate for L3 and below and lidocaine with dexamethasone above L3. A total of 142 patients will be recruited and follow-up will occur after 1, 2, 4, 10 and 21 weeks for assessment of pain, functionality, patient received recovery and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome will be the average score for leg pain at 2 weeks. For this outcome we defined a clinically relevant difference as 1.5 on the 11-point NRS scale.DiscussionAdequate conservative treatment in the acute phase of sciatica is lacking, particularly for patients with severe symptoms. Focusing on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of TEI will produce useful information allowing for more lucid decision making in the conservative treatment of sciatica in the acute phase.Trial registrationThis trial is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database under registry number NCT03924791 on April 23, 2019.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Acute sciatica (symptom duration less than 4 weeks), a major cause of pain and disability, is a common presentation to medical practices and hospital emergency departments. Selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid injection is often used with the hope of reducing pain and improving function. Recently, there has been interest in using systemic corticosteroids in acute sciatica. However, there is limited evidence to inform management of selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid in subacute and chronic sciatica and there is no evidence in acute sciatica, even though the practice is widespread. There is also limited evidence for the use of systemic corticosteroids in acute sciatica. Furthermore, the management of selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid versus systemic steroids has never been directly studied. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:SCIATICA is a pilot/feasibility study of patients with acute sciatica designed to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a blinded four-arm randomised controlled intervention study of (1) selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid (arm 1), (2) selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural saline (arm 2), (3) 15 days tapering dose of oral steroids (arm 3) and (4) a sham epidural and oral placebo control (arm 4). This feasibility study is designed to evaluate head-to-head, route versus pharmacology of interventions. The primary outcome measure is the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3 weeks. Secondary outcome is the ODI at 48 weeks. Other outcomes include numerical rating scale for leg pain, Pain DETECT Questionnaire, quality of life, medication use, rescue procedures or surgery, and adverse events. Results of outcomes from this randomised controlled trial will be used to determine the feasibility, sample size and power calculations for a large multicentre study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been approved by South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/331/POHW/586). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03240783; Pre-results.

Project description:Background:Sciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care. Methods:We did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581. Findings:Between May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10?601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care. Interpretation:The stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica. Funding:National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:Blood transfusion might affect long-term mortality by changing immune function and thus potentially increasing the risk of subsequent infections and cancer recurrence. Compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy, a more liberal strategy could reduce cardiac complications by lowering myocardial damage, thereby reducing future deaths from cardiovascular disease. We aimed to establish the effect of a liberal transfusion strategy on long-term survival compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy.In the randomised controlled FOCUS trial, adult patients aged 50 years and older, with a history of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and with postoperative haemoglobin concentrations lower than 100 g/L within 3 days of surgery to repair a hip fracture, were eligible for enrolment. Patients were recruited from 47 participating hospitals in the USA and Canada, and eligible participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio by a central telephone system to either liberal transfusion in which they received blood transfusion to maintain haemoglobin level at 100 g/L or higher, or restrictive transfusion in which they received blood transfusion when haemoglobin level was lower than 80 g/L or if they had symptoms of anaemia. In this study, we analysed the long-term mortality of patients assigned to the two transfusion strategies, which was a secondary outcome of the FOCUS trial. Long-term mortality was established by linking the study participants to national death registries in the USA and Canada. Treatment assignment was not masked, but investigators who ascertained mortality and cause of death were masked to group assignment. Analyses were by intention to treat. The FOCUS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00071032.Between July 19, 2004, and Feb 28, 2009, 2016 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 1007 to the liberal transfusion strategy and 1009 to the restrictive transfusion strategy. The median duration of follow-up was 3·1 years (IQR 2·4-4·1 years), during which 841 (42%) patients died. Long-term mortality did not differ significantly between the liberal transfusion strategy (432 deaths) and the restrictive transfusion strategy (409 deaths) (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·95-1·25]; p=0·21).Liberal blood transfusion did not affect mortality compared with a restrictive transfusion strategy in a high-risk group of elderly patients with underlying cardiovascular disease or risk factors. The underlying causes of death did not differ between the trial groups. These findings do not support hypotheses that blood transfusion leads to long-term immunosuppression that is severe enough to affect long-term mortality rate by more than 20-25% or cause of death.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus. METHODS:In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35-65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out. RESULTS:In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, -4.3; 95% CI, -11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (-3.2; -8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (-0.4; -1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

Dataset Information

Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica: 5-year results of a randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica: 5-year results of a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets