scholarly journals Sacroiliac Joint Interventions: A Systematic Review

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 165-184
Author(s):  
Hans C. Hansen

Background: The sacroiliac joint is a diarthrodial synovial joint with abundant innervation and capability of being a source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity. There are no definite historical, physical, or radiological features to provide definite diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain, although many authors have advocated provocational maneuvers to suggest sacroiliac joint as a pain generator. An accurate diagnosis is made by controlled sacroiliac joint diagnostic blocks. The sacroiliac joint has been shown to be a source of pain in 10% to 27% of suspected cases with chronic low back pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Intraarticular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy have been described as therapeutic measures. This systematic review was performed to assess diagnostic testing (non-invasive versus interventional diagnostic techniques) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of interventional techniques in the management of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Objective: To evaluate and update the available evidence regarding diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions in the management of sacroiliac joint pain. Study Design: A systematic review using the criteria as outlined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Cochrane Review Group Criteria for therapeutic interventions and AHRQ, and Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for diagnostic studies. Methods: The databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), and Cochrane Reviews were searched. The searches included systematic reviews, narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, and cross-references from articles reviewed. The search strategy included sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction, sacroiliac joint injections, interventions, and radiofrequency. Results: The results of this systematic evaluation revealed that for diagnostic purposes, there is moderate evidence showing the accuracy of comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. Prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 27% using a double block paradigm. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections is around 20%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain is limited. For therapeutic purposes, intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections with steroid and radiofrequency neurotomy were evaluated. Based on this review, there is limited evidence for short-term and longterm relief with intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections and radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. Conclusions: The evidence for the specificity and validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for accuracy of provocative maneuvers in diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for therapeutic intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic sacroiliac joint pain is limited. Keywords: Low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, axial pain, spinal pain, diagnostic block, sacroiliac joint injection, thermal radiofrequency, and pulsed radiofrequency

2012 ◽  
Vol 3;15 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E305-E344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas T. Simopoulos

Background: The contributions of the sacroiliac joint to low back and lower extremity pain have been a subject of considerable debate and research. It is generally accepted that 10% to 25% of patients with persistent mechanical low back pain below L5 have pain secondary to sacroiliac joint pathology. However, no single historical, physical exam, or radiological feature can definitively establish a diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. Based on present knowledge, a proper diagnosis can only be made using controlled diagnostic blocks. The diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac joint pain continue to be characterized by wide variability and a paucity of the literature. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions. Study Design: A systematic review of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions. Methods: Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: In this evaluation we utilized controlled local anesthetic blocks using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard. Results: The evidence is good for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 62% based on the setting; however, the majority of analyzed studies suggest a point prevalence of around 25%, with a false-positive rate for uncontrolled blocks of approximately 20%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain was fair. The evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of imaging is limited. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature, variations in technique, and variable criterion standards for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. Conclusions: Based on this systematic review, the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint injections is good, the evidence for provocation maneuvers is fair, and evidence for imaging is limited. Key words: Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, provocation manuevers, controlled diagnostic blocks, intraarticular injection, extraarticular injection.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5;23 (9;5) ◽  
pp. 439-450
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. Study Design: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. Objectives: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. Methods The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. Results: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. Conclusions: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries Key words: Chronic spinal pain, low back pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis, interventional techniques, sacroiliac joint injections


BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 329 (7459) ◽  
pp. 232.1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew N Bamji

2009 ◽  
Vol 2;12 (2;3) ◽  
pp. 399-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew P. Rupert

Background: The sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of low back and lower extremity pain. There are no definite historical, physical, or radiological features that can definitively establish a diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. Based on the present knowledge, an accurate diagnosis is made only by controlled sacroiliac joint diagnostic blocks. The sacroiliac joint has been shown to be a source of pain in 10% to 27% of suspected patients with chronic low back pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Study Design: A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions and the utility of therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. Methods: The literature search was carried out by searching the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane reviews. Methodologic quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria for diagnostic accuracy and observational studies, whereas randomized trials were evaluated utilizing the Cochrane review criteria. Only studies with scores of 50 or higher were included for assessment. Level of evidence was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. Outcome Measures: For diagnostic interventions, the outcome criteria included at least 50% pain relief coupled with a patient’s ability to perform previously painful maneuvers with sustained relief using placebo-controlled or comparative local anesthetic blocks. For therapeutic purposes, outcomes included significant pain relief and improvement in function and other parameters. Short-term relief for therapeutic interventions was defined as 6 months or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than 6 months. Results: The indicated level of evidence is II-2 for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain utilizing comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 38% using a double block paradigm in the study population. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections is 20% to 54%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain is Level II-3 or limited. For radiofrequency neurotomy the indicated evidence is limited (Level II-3) for short- and longterm relief. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature evaluating the role of both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and widespread methodological flaws. Conclusions: The indicated evidence for the validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2. The evidence for the accuracy of provocative maneuvers in the diagnosing of sacroiliac joint pain is limited (Level II-3). The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy is also limited (Level II-3). Key words: Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, thermal radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 515-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Several cell-based therapies have been proposed in recent years the management of low back pain, including the injection of medicinal signaling cells or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). However, there is only emerging clinical evidence to support their use at this time. Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of MSCs or PRP injections in the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain. Study Design: A systematic review and metaanalysis of the effectiveness of PRP and MSCs injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. The literature search was performed from 1966 through June 2018. Study Selection: Randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of injections of biologics into the disc, epidural space, facet joints, or sacroiliac joints. Data Extraction: Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data Synthesis: Twenty-one injection studies met inclusion criteria. There were 12 lumbar disc injections, 5 epidural, 3 lumbar facet joint, and 3 sacroiliac joint studies Results: Evidence synthesis based on a single-arm metaanalysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies, disc injections of PRP and MSCs showed Level 3 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V). Evidence for epidural injections based on single-arm metaanalysis, a single randomized controlled trial and other available studies demonstrated Level 4 (on a scale of Level I through V) evidence. Similarly, evidence for lumbar facet joint injections and sacroiliac joint injections without metaanalysis demonstrated Level 4 evidence (on a scale of Level I through V).. Limitations: Lack of high quality RCTs. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and single-arm metaanalysis shows that MSCs and PRP may be effective in managing discogenic low back pain, radicular pain, facet joint pain, and sacroiliac joint pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of these techniques. Key Words: Chronic low back pain, regenerative therapy, medicinal signaling or mesenchymal stem cells, platelet-rich plasma, disc injection, lumbar facet joint injections, sacroiliac joint injections


Author(s):  
Dmitri Souzdalnitski ◽  
Adam Kramer ◽  
Maged Guirguis

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections are valuable tools for diagnosing the source of low back pain and selecting patients for a radiofrequency ablation procedure, which tends to provide long-term relief for low back pain associated with SIJ dysfunction. Sacroiliac joint injections are generally safe and well-tolerated procedures. The most common complication is initial pain from distension of the joint capsule with contrast and local anesthetic. Despite adequate intra-articular needle placement, extravasation of local anesthetic may diffuse to lumbosacral nerve roots and/or the sciatic nerve, causing transient numbness and/or weakness. This chapter reviews the advantages of fluoroscopically guided SIJ injections as well as the step-by-step technique and how to avoid complications.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Chakraverty ◽  
Richard Dias

The work of a chronic back pain service in secondary care in the West Midlands is reported. The service offers acupuncture, spinal injection procedures, osteopathy and a range of other interventions for patients whose back pain has not responded to conservative management. This section of the report focuses on injection procedures for lumbar facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain, which have been shown to be the cause of chronic low back pain in 16–40% and 13–19% of patients respectively. Diagnosis relies on the use of intra-articular or sensory nerve block injections with local anaesthetic. Possible treatments following diagnosis include intra-articular corticosteroid, radiofrequency denervation (for facet joint pain) or ligament prolotherapy injections (for sacroiliac joint pain). The results of several hospital audits are reported. At six month follow up, 50% of 38 patients undergoing radiofrequency denervation following diagnostic blocks for facet joint pain had improved by more than 50%, compared to 29% of 34 patients treated with intra-articular corticosteroid injection. Sixty three per cent of 19 patients undergoing prolotherapy following diagnostic block injection for sacroiliac joint pain had improved at six months, compared to 33% of 33 who had intra-articular corticosteroid. Both radiofrequency denervation and sacroiliac prolotherapy showed good long-term outcomes at one year.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3;15 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E247-E278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Hansen

Background: The contribution of the sacroiliac joint to low back and lower extremity pain has been a subject of debate with extensive research. It is generally accepted that approximately 10% to 25% of patients with persistent low back pain may have pain arising from the sacroiliac joints. In spite of this, there are currently no definite conservative, interventional, or surgical management options for managing sacroiliac joint pain. In addition, there continue to be significant variations in the application of various techniques as well as a paucity of literature. Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. Methods: The available literature on therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for randomized trials of interventional techniques and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through December 2011 that was identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: For this systematic review, 56 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, 45 studies were excluded and a total of 11 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 6 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies. The evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain is fair. The evidence for effectiveness of intraarticular steroid injections is limited (or poor). The evidence for periarticular injections of local anesthetic and steroid or botulinum toxin is limited (or poor). The evidence for effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency neurotomy is limited (or poor). The evidence for pulsed radiofrequency is limited (or poor). Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature on therapeutic interventions, variations in technique, and variable diagnostic standards for sacroiliac joint pain. Conclusions: The evidence was fair in favor of cooled radiofrequency neurotomy and limited (or poor) for short-term and long-term relief from intraarticular steroid injections, periarticular injections with steroids or botulin toxin, pulsed radiofrequency, and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. Key words: Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, thermal radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1924-1931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiran Kumar Lingutla ◽  
Raymond Pollock ◽  
Sashin Ahuja

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document