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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic sacroiliac (SI) joint-related low back pain (LBP) is a common, yet under-diagnosed and undertreated condition due to difficulties in accurate diagnosis and highly variable treatment practices. In patients with debilitating SI-related LBP for at least 6 months duration who have failed conservative management, arthrodesis is a viable option. The SImmetry(®) SI Joint Fusion System is a novel therapy for SI joint fusion, not just fixation, which utilizes a minimally invasive surgical approach, instrumented fixation for immediate stability, and joint preparation with bone grafting for a secure construct in the long term. The purpose of this report is to describe the minimally invasive SI Joint Fusion System, including patient selection criteria, implant characteristics, surgical technique, postoperative recovery, and biomechanical testing results. Advantages and limitations of this system will be discussed.
    Medical Devices: Evidence and Research 05/2014; 7:125-30. DOI:10.2147/MDER.S63575
  • [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.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this case series is to report the effects of manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for patients with lumbopelvic (lumbar spine, sacroiliac and/or pelvic, hip) pain in an outpatient ambulatory/hospital-based setting. A retrospective chart review of cases treated at an outpatient ambulatory surgical center in New York and a general hospital in New York was performed. Patients with pre- and postintervention Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) scores and lumbopelvic and hip complaints were included (N = 18). No intervention other than MUA was administered between the initial and follow-up ODI scoring. Scores on the ODI were assessed within 1 week prior to MUA and again within 2 weeks postprocedure. Patients underwent 2 to 4 chiropractic MUA procedures over the course of 7 to 8 days as per National Academy of Manipulation Under Anesthesia physicians' protocols. Preprocedure ODI scores ranged from 38 to 76, with an average score of 53.4. Postprocedure scores ranged from 0 to 66, with an average score of 32.8. For each patient, ODI scores were lower after MUA, with an average decrease of 20.6. Sixteen of 18 patients experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in ODI score. No adverse reactions were reported. For 16 of the 18 patients with chronic lumbopelvic pain reported in this study, MUA showed clinically meaningful reduction in low back pain disability.
    Journal of chiropractic medicine 03/2014; 13(1):28-34. DOI:10.1016/j.jcm.2014.01.008

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Dec 15, 2014