Department of Neurosurgery, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust (member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.
Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool (member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Apr;25(24):1-86. doi: 10.3310/hta25240.
Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment.
To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months' duration.
Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection.
A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration.
NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK.
A total of 163 participants (aged 16-65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics.
The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland-Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England.
Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect -4.25 points, 95% confidence interval -11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland-Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.
Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment.
To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc.
These results will lead to further studies in the streamlining and earlier management of discogenic sciatica.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04820368 and EudraCT 2014-002751-25.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 25, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
坐骨神经痛是一种常见病症,据报道,在任何时候,超过 3%的英国人口都会受到影响,而且这种疾病通常是由椎间盘突出引起的。目前,还没有统一采用的治疗策略。侵入性治疗,如手术(即椎间盘切除术)和经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射,通常保留用于保守治疗失败的情况。
比较微椎间盘切除术与经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射治疗腰椎间盘突出症引起的神经根痛的临床疗效和成本效益,用于治疗坐骨神经痛持续时间<12 个月的非紧急情况。
将患者随机分为(1)微椎间盘切除术或(2)经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射。
一项实用的、多中心、随机前瞻性试验,比较了微椎间盘切除术与经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射治疗持续时间<1 年的椎间盘突出症引起的坐骨神经痛。
英国 NHS 提供二级脊柱外科护理的服务机构。
共招募了 163 名年龄在 16-65 岁之间的参与者,他们来自英国 11 个 NHS 门诊诊所。
主要结局是参与者在随机分组后 18 周时完成的 Oswestry 残疾问卷评分。次要结局是腿部疼痛和背部疼痛的视觉模拟评分;改良 Roland-Morris 评分(用于坐骨神经痛)、核心结局测量指标评分和参与者满意度,每隔 12 周进行评估。使用 EuroQol-5 维度,五个等级版本;医院发病统计数据;药物使用情况;以及每隔 12 周报告的自付费用数据来评估成本效益和生活质量。收集了不良事件数据。从英格兰 NHS 的角度来看,经济结果是每获得一个质量调整生命年的增量成本。
使用在线随机化系统,83 名参与者被分配到经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射组,80 名参与者被分配到微椎间盘切除术组。在第 18 周时,与基线相比,微椎间盘切除术组的 Oswestry 残疾问卷评分下降了 26.7 分,经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射组下降了 24.5 分。两种治疗方法之间的差异无统计学意义(估计治疗效果-4.25 分,95%置信区间-11.09 至 2.59 分)。在次要结局中,两种治疗方法之间也没有显著差异:Oswestry 残疾问卷评分、腿部疼痛和背部疼痛的视觉模拟评分、改良 Roland-Morris 评分和核心结局测量指标评分直至 54 周。微椎间盘切除术组有 4 例(3.8%)严重不良事件,包括一例(足下垂)神经麻痹,经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射组无此类事件。与经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射相比,微椎间盘切除术的增量成本效益比为每获得一个质量调整生命年 38737 英镑,在愿意支付每质量调整生命年 20000 英镑的阈值下,微椎间盘切除术具有 0.17 的成本效益概率。
24%的参与者的主要结局数据无效或不完整。敏感性分析表明,对缺失数据的假设具有稳健性。经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射组中有 18%的参与者在主要结局评估前接受了微椎间盘切除术。
据我们所知,Nerve Root Block VErsus Surgery 试验是第一项评估微椎间盘切除术和经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射治疗腰椎间盘突出症引起的神经根痛的临床有效性和成本效益的试验。两种治疗方法在主要结局上没有统计学上的显著差异。与经椎间孔硬膜外类固醇注射相比,微椎间盘切除术在每质量调整生命年 20000 英镑的阈值下不太可能具有成本效益,用于治疗椎间盘突出症引起的坐骨神经痛。
这些结果将导致在简化和早期管理椎间盘源性坐骨神经痛方面的进一步研究。
目前的对照试验 ISRCTN82201747 和 EudraCT 2014-002751-25。
本项目由英国国家卫生研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,全文将在 NIHR 期刊图书馆网站上发布;第 25 卷,第 24 期。有关该项目的更多信息,请参见 NIHR 期刊图书馆网站。