Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Authors: Martin J. Wilby, Carolyn Hopkins, Emma Bedson, Sue Howlin, Girvan Burnside, Elizabeth J. Conroy, Dyfrig A. Hughes, Manohar Sharma, Anthony Marson, Simon R. Clark, Paula Williamson

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID.

Methods/design

A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat.

Discussion

NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica.

Trial registration

ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368. Registered on 5 June 2014.
EudraCT EudraCT2014–002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Konstantinou K, Dunn KM. Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(22):2464–72.CrossRef
3.
Van Tulder M, Peul W, Koes B. Sciatica: what the rheumatologist needs to know. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2010. 2010;6(3):139–45.CrossRef
4.
Peul WC, et al. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336(7657):1355–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Mathieson S, et al. Trial of pregabalin for acute and chronic sciatica. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1111–20.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Cohen SP, et al. Epidural steroids: a comprehensive, evidence-based review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2013;38(3):175–200.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Lutz GE, Vad VB, Wisneski RJ. Fluoroscopic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroids: an outcome study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(11):1362–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rados I, et al. Efficacy of interlaminar vs transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the treatment of chronic unilateral radicular pain: prospective, randomized study. Pain Med. 2011;12(9):1316–21.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jeong HS, et al. Effectiveness of transforaminal epidural steroid injection by using a preganglionic approach: a prospective randomized controlled study 1. Radiology. 2007;245(2):584–90.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Buttermann GR. Treatment of lumbar disc herniation: epidural steroid injection compared with discectomy. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-a(4):670–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Peul WC, et al. Surgery versus prolonged conservative treatment for sciatica. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2245–56.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Pinto RZ, et al. Epidural corticosteroid injections in the management of sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(12):865–77.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Price C, et al. Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(33):1–58. iii.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Deyo RA, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(18):2003–13.CrossRef
16.
Fairbank JC, et al. The Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.PubMed
17.
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8–24.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Devogelaer JP, et al. Guidelines for clinical studies assessing the efficacy of drugs for the management of acute low back pain. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21(6):691–4.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial
Authors
Martin J. Wilby
Carolyn Hopkins
Emma Bedson
Sue Howlin
Girvan Burnside
Elizabeth J. Conroy
Dyfrig A. Hughes
Manohar Sharma
Anthony Marson
Simon R. Clark
Paula Williamson
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2677-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue

Study protocol

GRam stain-guided Antibiotics ChoicE for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (GRACE-VAP) trial: rationale and study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

Improving work for the body – a participatory ergonomic intervention aiming at reducing physical exertion and musculoskeletal pain among childcare workers (the TOY-project): study protocol for a wait-list cluster-randomized controlled trial

Methodology

Planning a future randomized clinical trial based on a network of relevant past trials

Study protocol

Combined Cognitive-Behavioural and Physiotherapeutic Therapy for Patients with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (COMBI-CPPS): study protocol for a controlled feasibility trial

Study protocol

The efficacy of the traditional Chinese medicine Juanbi pill combined with methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Towards a health-enabling working environment - developing and testing interventions to decrease HIV and TB stigma among healthcare workers in the Free State, South Africa: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial