Subgroup analysis of treatments for patients suffering from sciatica .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(5):74 Eur Spine J. 2009 Apr;18(4):538-45. Epub 2009 Jan 9Exclusive Author Interview
Surgical timing and its effect on clinical outcomes of sciatica with Dr. Peul
283 patients suffering from sciatica, identified by radiological confirmation of expected disc herniation, were either randomized to a prolonged conservative treatment (delayed surgical intervention if necessary) or to an early surgical intervention. The results indicated that conservative treatment produced similar results as the early surgical intervention at one year. This study also performed a secondary analysis of different subgroups within the patient population to identify determinants of recovery time in both procedures. The analysis identified sciatic pain upon sitting, as an indicator for early surgical intervention.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
3/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Sciatica is typically treated by two methods: either an early surgical intervention or a conservative treatment, followed by surgery if necessary. This study has initially provided evidence that a conservative treatment results in similar functional recovery at 1 year; however, it required more time compared to the early surgical intervention. This study aimed to define the exact determinants that predict recovery rates in the two treatment methods.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Are there any anamnestic, neurological, or radiological variables that influence the rate of recovery between an early surgical treatment versus a conservative treatment?
- Patients with sciatica pain, provoked by sitting, were shown to have slower rates of recovery when randomized to prolonged conservative treatment (p = 0.07)
- There was a 2.2 hazard ratio (95% CI 1.7 to 3.0) in favor of the early surgical procedure in patients with sciatica pain, provoked by sitting; while in patients without the pain provoked by sitting, the hazard ratio was only 1.3 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.2), in favor of early surgical intervention
- The RDQ and VAS scores over the first year showed significant differences between early surgery and conservative treatment when stratified for sciatic provoked by siting (P= 0.05 and 0.03, respectively). For sciatica not provoked by siting early surgery showed less favourable results.
- There were no differences observed in other subgroup analyses including age, job demands, history of back pain and difficulty to put on shoes
- No interaction between classical neurological tests on speed of recovery was seen. Treatment preference did not influence any of the outcomes either.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
The only variable this study identifies as an indication for early surgery, providing the quickest recovery, is sciatica pain that is provoked by sitting.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Patients with sciatica that have pain provoked by sitting may have improved clinical outcomes with early surgical intervention as opposed to conservative therapy. Larger trials need to investigate if conservative treatment is a better option for sciatica provoked by other means.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
