SPINAL MANIPULATION, EPIDURAL INJECTIONS, AND SELF-CARE FOR SCIATICA: A PILOT STUDY FOR A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
 
   

Spinal Manipulation, Epidural Injections, and Self-care
for Sciatica: A Pilot Study for a Randomized Clinical Trial

This section is compiled by Frank M. Painter, D.C.
Send all comments or additions to:
    Frankp@chiro.org
 
   

FROM:   J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 (Oct);   27 (8):   503–508 ~ FULL TEXT

Gert Bronfort, DC, PhD, Roni L. Evans, DC, Michele Maiers, DC, Alfred V. Anderson, MD

Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies,
Northwestern Health Sciences University,
Bloomington, MN 55431, USA.
gbronfort@nwhealth.edu


OBJECTIVE:   To assess the feasibility of recruiting sciatica patients and to evaluate their compliance in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial. We also aimed to determine the responsiveness of key outcome measures.

METHODS:   Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to spinal manipulation (n=11), epidural steroid injections (n=11), or self-care education (n=10). No between-group comparisons were planned because of the small sample size.

RESULTS:   At week 12 (the end of the treatment phase), the outcome measures indicating the most improvement/change were the Oswestry disability score (mean, 22.9; SD, 19.9; effect size [ES], 1.8), leg pain severity (mean, 2.9; SD, 1.7; ES, 1.7), and if the symptoms were bothersome (mean, 25.2; SD, 16.0; ES, 1.6). Twenty-four patients were either "very satisfied" or "completely satisfied," and 22 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement. After 52 weeks, the outcome measure showing the most improvement/change was leg pain severity (mean, 2.3; SD, 2.6; ES, 1.35), followed by the Oswestry disability score (mean, 15.6; SD, 20; ES, 1.2) and if symptoms were bothersome (mean, 18.1; SD, 22.6; ES, 1.1). Eighteen patients were either "very satisfied" or "completely satisfied," and 15 of 32 patients reported 75% or 100% improvement.

CONCLUSIONS:   The results of this pilot study suggest that it is feasible to recruit subacute and chronic sciatica patients and to obtain their compliance for a full-scale randomized clinical.

Keywords   Chiropractic Manipulation, Drug Therapy, Spine, Sciatica



From the FULL TEXT Article:

Introduction

Back-related leg pain, or sciatica, is one of the common variations of low-back pain. [1, 2] Sciatica sufferers have been identified as an important subgroup of low-back pain patients with potentially different prognoses and responses to treatment. [3, 4] Often disabling, sciatica accounts for more work loss than uncomplicated low-back pain [5] and is associated with more recurrences and an increased need for surgery. [6]

Sciatica is commonly equated with lumbar radiculopathy caused by mechanical root compression secondary to a disk herniation. However, there is a substantial amount of research indicating that radiating pain to the leg often exists in the absence of disk herniation. Discography studies have shown that internal disruption associated with annular tears in the posterior part of the disk, when provoked by irritating dye injections, can reproduce pain radiation into the lower limb. [7] These leg symptoms thus occur in the absence of direct nerve compression or irritation by a disk fragment in the epidural space. It has also been shown that breakdown products from degenerating nucleus pulposus tissue may leak into the epidural space and result in inflammatory changes involving the nerve root. [8, 9]

Surgery is a costly treatment strategy for sciatica and is only indicated for patients with progressive neurologic deficits or unmanageable pain. Nonsurgical treatment such as spinal manipulation, epidural steroid injections, and self-care advice are prescribed for many sciatica patients. [10] Despite their common use, however, there is still uncertainty regarding the efficacy of these interventions and a need for randomized clinical studies. [11–13]

The purposes of this pilot study were to assess the feasibility of recruiting patients, to evaluate their compliance in preparation for a full-scale randomized clinical trial, and to determine the responsiveness of key outcomes. A previous pilot study with more restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria indicated recruitment of acute and subacute sciatica patients would not be possible in our setting. [14] However, through the first pilot study, we identified a broader population of patients who had suffered with sciatica for longer periods of time. Subsequent design changes, specifically the addition of a self-care education group, also required further testing. Would patients with chronic sciatica be willing to accept a minimal intervention such as self-care education? Furthermore, could chronic sciatica patients comply with the proposed study protocols including questionnaires, objective testing, and random assignment to 1 of 3 treatments? Finally, given the limited available scientific literature regarding sciatica of longer duration, it was necessary to assess the performance of our outcome measures and obtain variability estimates for new sample size calculations.



Discussion

One of the most critical aspects of conducting a randomized clinical trial is the ability to recruit qualified and willing participants. In our previous pilot study of acute and subacute sciatica patients, the recruitment rate during a 1–year period was less than 3% (20 individuals randomized of 706 individuals initially screened by telephone). Consequently, we determined that recruitment for a full-scale study was not feasible in our setting. However, we did identify a substantial number of chronic sciatica sufferers seeking relief, which led to this second pilot study. The recruitment rate for the current study was approximately 10% (32 randomized of 344 initially screened), which was more than 3 times what was observed in the first pilot study. Further, this recruitment rate is likely an underestimation due to the fact that 56 patients had to be wait-listed because the study became full.

Although our recruitment efforts for the second pilot study were successful, we also identified barriers to recruitment for future full-scale trials. Almost a one-third (101 of 344) of those interviewed were not interested in participating in this study. The most common reason given for declining participation was not wanting to accept the chance of receiving epidural steroid injections (26 of 101). Thus, future recruitment efforts will need to take into account the general public's preconceived opinions regarding the study therapies and perhaps adopt a more educational approach.

Patient compliance with the treatment and data collection protocols in this study was high, with only 1 of 32 patients refusing treatment (injection group) and 31 of 32 patients completing the week 12 evaluations. Data were also successfully collected 1 year after treatment, with 28 of 32 randomized patients returning the mailed self-report questionnaires. A concern in this study was whether chronic sciatica patients would perceive the self-care education group as a legitimate treatment approach. Nine of 32 study patients expected they would experience “no change” with self-care, compared with 3 patients expecting no change with chiropractic treatment and 0 patients expecting no change with injections. However, those that received the self-care treatment seemed to tolerate it well, with all patients randomized to that group completing the treatment and follow-up visits. Furthermore, more than half the patients in the self-care group were highly satisfied with the care they received and half of them reported 50% to 100% improvement 12 weeks after treatment and 1 year later. These results suggest that the self-care education group is a feasible “minimal intervention” group for randomized clinical trials assessing patients with subacute and chronic sciatica. However, because of expectation differences and their potential effect on outcomes, pretreatment expectations should be measured and factored into the statistical analyses.

The Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, leg pain, and how bothersome symptoms were were the most responsive outcome measures in this sample of subacute and chronic sciatica patients. These were also the most responsive outcomes in the previous pilot study of acute and subacute sciatica sufferers,14 although the magnitude of effect sizes was somewhat larger in the previous study. This may be related to the chronicity of sciatica experienced by individuals in the current study, who may be more prone to smaller degrees of improvement, which is then reflected in the outcome measures. Future studies of chronic sciatica patients may want to consider the use of questionnaires that measure coping and fear avoidance behaviors to reflect some of the other dimensions of the chronic pain experience.

The costs associated with this second pilot study were substantial in terms of financial resources, effort, and time. High-quality clinical research is an arduous and costly process with few quick answers. To proceed with a full-scale randomized clinical trial without critical information regarding recruitment feasibility and study protocols raises the potential for squandered finances, immense frustration, and wasted effort on the part of patients and personnel should the study be unsuccessful. Two recent pilot studies [14, 24] have successfully shown the usefulness of pilot studies to identify areas in which the subsequent full-scale randomized trials would have failed. Although patients, clinicians, and health care policy makers clamor for scientific evidence now, investigators and funding agencies have a responsibility to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken to ensure the successful conduct and completion of high-quality clinical research. This includes establishing the feasibility and likelihood of success through well-designed pilot studies.



Conclusion

The results of this pilot study suggest that it is feasible to recruit subacute and chronic sciatica patients for a randomized clinical trial to compare chiropractic care, epidural steroid injections, and self-care education. Furthermore, subacute and chronic sciatica patients appear willing and able to comply to with the study protocols, as described in this article. Appropriate outcome measures have been identified, and variability estimates have been obtained to inform the sample size of future full-scale trials. Although this second pilot study required substantial time and resources, the lessons learned and conclusions drawn are valuable for the successful conduct of future research.



References:

  1. Deyo, RA, Haselkorn, J, Hoffman, R, and Kent, DL.
    Designing studies of diagnostic tests for low back pain or radiculopathy.
    Spine. 1994; 19: 2057S–2065S

  2. Little, DG and MacDonald, D.
    The use of the percentage change in Oswestry Disability Index score as an outcome measure in lumbar spinal surgery.
    Spine. 1994; 19: 2139–2143

  3. Bronfort, G, Goldsmith, CH, Nelson, CF, Boline, PD, and Anderson, AV.
    Trunk Exercise Combined with Spinal Manipulative or NSAID Therapy
    for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized, Observer-blinded Clinical Trial

    J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996 (Nov); 19 (9): 570–582

  4. Bouter, LM, van Tulder, MW, and Koes, BW.
    Methodologic issues in low back pain research in primary care.
    Spine. 1998; 23: 2014–2020

  5. Andersson, GB.
    Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain.
    Lancet. 1999; 354: 581–585

  6. Gibson, JN, Grant, IC, and Waddell, G.
    The Cochrane Review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis.
    Spine. 1999; 24: 1820–1832

  7. Milette, PC, Fontaine, S, Lepanto, L, and Breton, G.
    Radiating pain to the lower extremities caused by lumbar disk rupture without spinal nerve root involvement.
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1995; 16: 1605–1613

  8. Olmarker, K and Rydevik, B.
    Pathophysiology of sciatica.
    Orthop Clin North Am. 1991; 22: 223–234

  9. Garfin, SR, Rydevik, B, Lind, B, and Massie, J.
    Spinal nerve root compression.
    Spine. 1995; 20: 1810–1820

  10. Atlas, SJ, Deyo, RA, Keller, RB, Chapin, AM, Patrick, DL, Long, JM et al.
    The Maine Lumbar Spine Study, Part II. 1-year outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 1777–1786

  11. Koes, BW, Assendelft, WJJ, van der Heijden, GJMG, and Bouter, LM.
    Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 2860–2873

  12. van Tulder, MW, Koes, BW, and Bouter, LM.
    Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions.
    Spine. 1997; 22: 2128–2156

  13. Bronfort, G.
    Spinal manipulation: current state of research and its indications.
    Neurol Clin. 1999; 17: 91–111

  14. Bronfort G, Evans RL, Anderson AV, Schellhas KP, Garvey TA, Marks RA, et al.
    Nonoperative Treatments for Sciatica: A Pilot Study for a Randomized Clinical Trial
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000 (Oct); 23 (8): 536–544

  15. Spitzer, WO.
    Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders. A monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders.
    Spine. 1987; 12: S1–S59

  16. Atlas, SJ, Deyo, RA, Patrick, DL, Convery, K, Keller, RB, and Singer, DE.
    The Quebec Task Force classification for spinal disorders and the severity, treatment, and outcomes of sciatica and lumbar spinal stenosis.
    Spine. 1996; 21: 2885–2892

  17. McKenzie, R.
    in: P van Wijmen (Ed.) Treat your own back. 7th ed.
    Spinal Publications New Zealand, Ltd.,
    Waikanae, New Zealand; 1997: 1–80

  18. Jaeschke, R, Singer, J, and Guyatt, GH.
    A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales. Data from a randomized trial.
    Control Clin Trials. 1990; 11: 43–51

  19. Patrick, DL.
    Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.
    Spine. 1995; 20: 1899–1909

  20. Roland, M and Fairbank, J.
    The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
    Spine. 2000; 25: 3115–3124

  21. Bronfort, G, Evans, R, Nelson, B, Aker, P, Goldsmith, C, and Vernon, H.
    A Randomized Clinical Trial of Exercise and Spinal Manipulation
    for Patients with Chronic Neck Pain

    Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 (Apr 1); 26 (7): 788–797

  22. Ries, PW.
    in: Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey: United States, 1984.
    National Center for Health Statistics,
    Hyattsville (MD); 1986: 1–191

  23. Schuit, D, Petersen, C, Johnson, R, Levine, P, Knecht, H, and Goldberg, D.
    Validity and reliability of measures obtained from the OSI CA-6000 spine motion analyzer for lumbar spinal motion.
    Man Ther. 1997; 2: 206–215

  24. Hawk, C, Long, CR, Reiter, R, Davis, CS, Cambron, JA, and Evans, R.
    Issues in Planning a Placebo-controlled Trial of Manual Methods:
    Results of a Pilot Study

    J Altern Complement Med 2002; 8 (1) Feb: 21–32



Return to the LOW BACK PAIN Section

Return to the CHIROPRACTIC AND SCIATICA Page

Since 9–03–2017

         © 1995–2017 ~ The Chiropractic Resource Organization ~ All Rights Reserved