Immediate Effect of Contralateral Versus Ipsilateral Slider Neural Mobilization With Blood Flow Restriction Training For Sciatica - A Clinical Trial

Objectives Sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy is a painful condition caused by compression of the spinal nerve roots that travel to the extremities. Neural mobilisation (NM) enhances the gliding of nerves, thereby reducing pain that can be experienced ipsilaterally or contralaterally. Blood flow restriction therapy (BFRT) promotes muscular growth through mechanical tension and metabolic stress. Material and Methods Thirty-eight participants aged 25–60 years with subacute or chronic unilateral lumbar radiculopathy were randomly allocated into two groups ( n = 19 each). Group A received contralateral slider neural mobilisation combined with blood flow restriction training (BFRT), whereas Group B received ipsilateral slider neural mobilisation combined with BFRT. Participants underwent a single treatment session, and outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 24 h. Pain intensity (numeric pain rating scale [NPRS]) was the primary outcome, while functional disability (Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire [MODQ]) and hip flexion range of motion (SLR using a goniometer) were secondary outcomes. Results The within-group analysis of data revealed that pain ( d = 1.63, p = 0.001), functional disability (d = 1.35, p = 0.001), and hip flexion range of motion during the SLR test ( d = 2.02, p = 0.001) were found to be statistically significant ( p <0.05), while for the between-group analysis, it was only statistically significant ( p <0.05) for immediate and 24 h post-treatment. Conclusion Both ipsilateral and contralateral slider neural mobilisation combined with BFRT produced statistically significant short-term improvements in pain, disability, and hip flexion range of motion (ROM). Although the ipsilateral group demonstrated greater statistical improvement, the observed changes in pain and disability did not reach the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted as statistically significant but of limited clinical significance until further studies are performed.