Two-Year Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs. Non-Surgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction

Background: The sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD) has been found to be the primary culprit for lower back pain (LBP), but it is still overlooked and treated as LBP. There are no guidelines or appropriate therapeutic protocols for SIJD. Thus, there is a need for an effective treatment strategy for SIJD. Objective: To compare exercise therapy (ET), manipulation therapy (MT), and a combination of the 2 (EMT) in terms of their effectiveness in treating SIJD. Study Design: A comparative, prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial . Setting: Sports Medicine Department of Rasoul Akram Hospital. Methods: A total of 51 patients with lower back or buttock pain resulting from SIJD were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 study groups: ET, MT, or EMT. The ET group received posterior innominate self-mobilization, sacroiliac joint stretching, and spinal stabilization exercises. The MT group underwent posterior innominate mobilization and SIJ manipulation. Lastly, the EMT group received manipulation maneuvers followed by exercise therapy. Pain and disability were assessed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks after the interventions. Results: All 3 groups demonstrated significant improvement in pain and disability scores compared to the baseline (P < 0.05). The difference among these therapeutic protocols was found to be a function of time. At week 6, MT showed notable results, but at week 12, the effect of ET was remarkable. Finally, at week 24, no significant difference was observed among the study groups. Limitations: A major limitation of the present study is lack of a control group receiving a type of intervention other than the experimental protocols. Another limitation is the short duration of follow-ups. Conclusions: Exercise and manipulation therapy appear to be effective in reducing pain and disability in patients with SIJD. However, the combination of these 2 therapies does not seem to bring about significantly better therapeutic results than either approach implemented separately. Key words: Exercise therapy, manipulation therapy, sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Download Full-text

1-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Conservative Management vs. Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for Sacroiliac Joint Pain

January 2018 - Pain Physician ◽

10.36076/ppj.20.5.537 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 (20;6) ◽

pp. 537-550 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Julius Dengler

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Sacroiliac Joint ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Titanium Implants ◽

Leg Pain ◽

Recurrent Pain ◽

Randomized Controlled

Background: Low back pain (LBP) emanating from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common finding. Devices to fuse the SIJ are now commercially available, but high-quality evidence supporting their effectiveness is limited. Objectives: To compare the safety and effectiveness of conservative management (CM) to minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) in patients with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ. Study Design: Prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Setting: One hundred three adults in spine clinics with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to CM (n = 51) or SIJF using triangular titanium implants (n = 52). CM consisted of optimization of medical therapy, individualized physiotherapy, and adequate information and reassurance as part of a multifactorial treatment. The primary outcome was the difference in change in self-rated LBP at 6 months using a 0 – 100 visual analog scale (VAS). Other effectiveness and safety endpoints, including leg pain, disability using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), quality of life using EQ-5D, and SIJ function using active straight leg raise test (ASLR), were assessed up to 12 months. Results: At 12 months, mean LBP improved by 41.6 VAS points in the SIJF group vs. 14.0 points in the CM group (treatment difference of 27.6 points, P < 0.0001). Mean ODI improved by 25.0 points in the SIJF group vs. 8.7 points in the CM group (P < 0.0001). Mean improvements in leg pain and EQ-5D scores were large after SIJF and superior to those after CM. CM patients were allowed to crossover to SIJF after 6 months. Patients who crossed to surgical treatment had no pre-crossover improvement in pain and ODI scores; after crossover, improvements were as large as those originally assigned to SIJF. One case of postoperative nerve impingement occurred in the surgical group. Two SIJF patients had recurrent pain attributed to possible device loosening and one had postoperative hematoma. In the CM group, one crossover surgery patient had recurrent pain requiring a revision surgery. Limitations: The primary limitation was lack of blinding and the subjective nature of self-assessed outcomes. Conclusions: For patients with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ, minimally invasive SIJF with triangular titanium implants was safe and more effective than CM in relieving pain, reducing disability, and improving patient function and quality of life. Our findings will help to inform decisions regarding its use as a treatment option in this patient population.

Download Full-text