Article

A systematic evaluation of prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint interventions.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Pain physician (Impact Factor: 4.77). 05/2012; 15(3):E305-44.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions.
A systematic review of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions.
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 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.
In this evaluation we utilized controlled local anesthetic blocks using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard.
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.
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.
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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Steven P Cohen, Dec 15, 2014
7 Followers
 · 
171 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Chamberlain’s projections (anterior-posterior x-ray of the pubic symphysis) have been used to diagnose sacroiliac joint mobility during the single-leg stance test. This study examined the movement in the sacroiliac joint during the single-leg stance test with precise radiostereometric analysis. Methods Under general anesthesia, tantalum markers were inserted into the dorsal sacrum and the ilium of 11 patients with long-lasting and severe pelvic girdle pain. After two to three weeks, a radiostereometric analysis was conducted while the subjects performed a single-leg-stance. Findings Small movements were detected in the sacroiliac joint during the single-leg stance. In both the standing- and hanging-leg sacroiliac join, a total of 0.5 degree rotation was observed; however, no translations were detected. There were no differences in total movement between the standing- and hanging-leg sacroiliac joint. Interpretation The movement in the sacroiliac joint during the single-leg stance is small and almost undetectable by the precise radiostereometric analysis. A complex movement pattern was seen during the test, with a combination of movements in the two joints. The interpretation of the results of this study is that, the Chamberlain examination likely is inadequate in the examination of sacroiliac joint movement in patients with pelvic girdle pain.
    Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 04/2014; 29(4). DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.02.002 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most people experience back pain at some point during their lives. Reports suggest that core stability interventions in subjects with non-specific low-back pain may increase function, thus decreasing pain. Reliable and validated clinical tests are required for implementing adequate rehabilitation and for evaluating such interventions. OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature overview seeks to assess the risk of bias and summarise the results of articles assessing the inter-and intra-observer reliability of clinical screening tests for movement control in subjects with non-specific low-back pain. METHOD: A search was conducted in electronic search engines up until October 2011. The terms 'low-back pain', 'test', 'movement control', 'motor control' and 'physical examination' were defined and used. An appraisal tool (QAREL) was used to assess the risk of bias. Results of the studies were summarised. RESULTS: Eight studies were included and assessed. All examined inter-observer reliability and three also examined intra-observer reliability. The grading of the studies varied from five to nine positive items out of eleven possible. Inter-observer reliability ranged between poor and very good agreement. Intra-observer reliability ranged between moderate and very good agreement. CONCLUSION: Most of the tests are presented in studies conducted with a high risk of bias. Their clinical implications can therefore not be suggested. Two tests, prone knee bend and one leg stance are assessed across studies with moderate and good reliability respectively and presented in studies conducted with a lower risk of bias. Their utilisation in clinical work may be recommended.
    Manual therapy 09/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.math.2012.08.004 · 1.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design: Comparative assessment of randomized controlled trials of caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Objective: To assess the comparative efficacy of caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches of epidural injections in managing axial or discogenic low back pain. Summary of Background Data: Epidural injections are commonly performed utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach to treat chronic lumbar axial or discogenic pain, which is pain exclusive of that associated with a herniated intervertebral disc, or that is due to degeneration of the zygapophyseal joints, or due to dysfunction of the sacroiliac joints, respectively. The literature on the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic axial lumbar pain of presumed discogenic origin is limited. Methods: The present analysis is based on 2 randomized controlled trials of chronic axial low back pain not caused by disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain, utilizing either a caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach, with a total of 240 patients studied, and a 24-month follow-up. Patients were assigned to receive either local anesthetic only or local anesthetic with a steroid in each 60 patient group. Results: The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as pain relief and functional status improvement of at least 50% from baseline, which was reported at 24-month follow-ups in 72% who received local anesthetic only with a lumbar interlaminar approach and 54% who received local anesthetic only with a caudal approach. In patients receiving local anesthetic with a steroid, the response rate was 67% for those who had a lumbar interlaminar approach and 68% for those who had a caudal approach at 12 months. The response was significantly better in the lumbar interlaminar group who received local anesthetic only, 77% versus 56% at 12 months and 72% versus 54% at 24 months. Conclusion: This assessment shows that in patients with axial or discogenic pain in the lumbar spine after excluding facet joint and SI Joint pain, epidural injections of local anesthetic by the caudal or lumbar interlaminar approach may be effective in managing chronic low back pain with a potential superiority for a lumbar interlaminar approach over a caudal approach.
    International journal of medical sciences 01/2015; 12(3):214-222. DOI:10.7150/ijms.10870 · 1.55 Impact Factor