Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Summary

The hypothesis is that in the treatment of low back pain (LBP) radiating to the leg, the long-term results of prolotherapy are more effective than those of the current conventional treatment: epidural steroid injections (ESI). This research will examine the efficacy of prolotherapy injections versus epidural steroid injections for the treatment of low back pain radiating to the leg. This is a randomized, unblinded study, in which patients seen in the principle investigator's pain clinic will be randomly divided to receive treatments from either the experimental, prolotherapy group, or the active control, ESI group.


Clinical Trial Description

The primary goal of the study is to investigate the long-term efficacy of prolotherapy for patients with LBP referring to the leg. The secondary goal is to compare this efficacy with that of epidural steroids. The reason for exploring options other than ESI is that the latter have proved to be disappointing. Comprehensive reviews have been written on interlaminar and transforaminal epidurals which basically show poor long-term results of longer than 3 months. In addition, ESI carries risks of neurological damage, epidural hematoma and infection. However, ESI continues to be the most widely used treatment worldwide. Research also shows that with increasing age, there is an increased incidence of ligament laxity, spondylolisthesis and angulation which may in turn lead to nerve impingement and deterioration in function with time. Sprained and strained ligaments are themselves capable of referring pain down the leg even as far as the ankle. Research shows that much of the pain referred down the leg is not from impinged nerve roots but from other soft tissues, such as the above-mentioned ligaments; these must be addressed and treated not only to treat pain but in order to improve function. The term prolotherapy is otherwise known as proliferative regeneration therapy and is aimed at doing just the opposite of cortisone, namely, to strengthen the structures injected, usually ligaments. Prolotherapy solutions are also used to treat partially torn tendons, as in the case of partial rotator cuff tears. Research on prolotherapy has shown that this treatment mode produces varying results in the treatment of low back pain and carries fewer risks than epidurals. One can infer from this that it may provide a safer and better long-term treatment method than ESI. Yelland's review shows that prolotherapy works for the treatment of LBP if this treatment method is combined with other measures such as exercises or manipulations. In this study, patients with low back pain radiating to the leg will be randomized to receive either epidural steroid injections or prolotherapy injections using a solution made up of 20% dextrose. In light of the results of the research quoted, it was decided to give exercise instructions tailored to every patient's condition. Both patients from the experimental and the control groups will receive this instruction in order to avoid the presence of another confounding variable. A precondition to being included in the trial is having either a CT or MRI of the lumbar spine within the previous 18 months and not having any of the exclusion criteria cited below. Once included in the trial, patients will be randomized into the study and control groups. All epidural injections will be performed under fluoroscopy, and radiocontrast dye will be injected to verify that the injectate will be given in the correct place. Patients in this group will receive 3 interlaminar epidural steroid injections approximately 4 weeks apart. The solution injected will be made up of 80mg methylprednisolone acetate with bupivacaine. The level injected will depend on the clinical picture. All of the prolotherapy dextrose injections will be performed under ultrasound guidance. Prolotherapy patients will receive 5 sessions approximately 4 weeks apart. In each session, 6 injections in different areas of the lumbosacral spine and sacroiliac ligaments will be injected with 20% dextrose solution using a 25 gauge spinal needle. The targeted structures include the following: the facet joint capsular ligaments, interspinous ligaments, and some of the sacroiliac ligaments, depending on the clinical assessment. The clinical picture will determine what levels will be injected in each session. As described below, patients will be assessed prior to the study and after the study regarding their pain and function. Because several patients fail to improve and continue to suffer from severe pain, it was considered unethical to keep patients in their original grouping and prevent crossover for a period of 12 months. Crossover will be permitted if all of the following conditions apply: 1. At least 1 month has passed since the last treatment in the original allocation group 2. NRS pain levels are at least 6 out of 10 3. Pain and function have not improved with the originally allocated treatment 4. The patient requests the crossover. Participants will receive the same treatments in the crossover groups as patients who were originally allocated to those groups Therefore, patients who cross over to the epidural side will receive up to 3 epidural injections approximately 1 month apart. Participants who cross over to the prolotherapy grouping will receive up to 5 treatment sessions also approximately 1 month apart. Follow-up of crossover participants will also be performed in the same manner and by the same independent investigator as for non-cross-over participants at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the last crossover treatment. ;


Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


NCT number NCT01934868
Study type Interventional
Source Hadassah Medical Organization
Contact
Status Completed
Phase Phase 4
Start date December 1, 2013
Completion date April 10, 2023

See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT02384928 - Effects of Shinbaro Pharmacopuncture in Sciatic Pain Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation N/A
Completed NCT05626140 - COMPARISON OF EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT DRUG COMBINATIONS IN ACUTE SCIATICA Phase 3
Withdrawn NCT02313350 - Intradiscal Discogel® in Resistant Sciatica N/A
Unknown status NCT02512081 - "The Lived Experience of Investigations for Sciatica" N/A
Recruiting NCT06179901 - The Effect of Early MSAT Treatment on Sciatica Caused by Traffic Accidents N/A
Terminated NCT02951377 - Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment and/or Steroid Injections for Lumbar Radiculopathy Phase 1
Completed NCT03347929 - NSAIDs in Sciatica NSAIDS IN SCIATICA Phase 4
Completed NCT04145310 - BOL-DP-o-04 in Patients With Low Back Pain and Sciatica Phase 1/Phase 2
Enrolling by invitation NCT04660656 - Predictive Value of the Five-repetition Sit-to-stand Test After Lumbar Spine surgerySTS-3 Study.
Completed NCT02644421 - Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Analgesic Efficacy of VVZ-149 in Lumbar Radiculopathy (Sciatica) Phase 1
Completed NCT00991172 - A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneously Administered REGN475(SAR164877) in Patients With Sciatic Pain Phase 2
Completed NCT00668434 - Effectiveness of Oral Prednisone in Improving Physical Functioning and Decreasing Pain in People With Sciatica Phase 2
Completed NCT00749996 - Herniectomy Versus Herniectomy With a Spinal Stabilization System for the Treatment of Complex Disc Disease Phase 4
Completed NCT00246948 - The Efficacy of Active Conservative Treatment for Patients With Severe Sciatica. A Randomized Clinical Controlled Trial N/A
Completed NCT04155450 - Effects of Extension Biased External Limb Loading in Addition to McKenzie Extension Protocol in Lumbar Derangement Syndrome N/A
Completed NCT02284542 - NAPS: Non-awake Versus Awake Placement of Spinal Cord Stimulators
Recruiting NCT02770963 - Efficacy of Acupuncture for Discogenic Sciatica N/A
Completed NCT00364572 - Efficacy of Epidural Etanercept in the Treatment of Sciatica Phase 1/Phase 2
Completed NCT00470509 - Adalimumab in Severe and Acute Sciatica Phase 2
Active, not recruiting NCT03887962 - Virtual Environment Rehabilitation for Patients With Motor Neglect Trial N/A