The sacroiliac joint: anatomy, physiology and clinical significance.
ABSTRACT The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a putative source of low back pain. The objective of this article is to provide clinicians with a concise review of SIJ structure and function, diagnostic indicators of SIJ-mediated pain, and therapeutic considerations. The SIJ is a true diarthrodial joint with unique characteristics not typically found in other diarthrodial joints. The joint differs with others in that it has fibrocartilage in addition to hyaline cartilage, there is discontinuity of the posterior capsule, and articular surfaces have many ridges and depressions. The sacroiliac joint is well innervated. Histological analysis of the sacroiliac joint has verified the presence of nerve fibers within the joint capsule and adjoining ligaments. It has been variously described that the sacroiliac joint receives its innervation from the ventral rami of L4 and L5, the superior gluteal nerve, and the dorsal rami of L5, S1, and S2, or that it is almost exclusively derived from the sacral dorsal rami. Even though the sacroiliac joint is a known putative source of low back and lower extremity pain, there are few findings that are pathognomonic of sacroiliac joint pain. The controlled diagnostic blocks utilizing the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria demonstrated the prevalence of pain of sacroiliac joint origin in 19% to 30% of the patients suspected to have sacroiliac joint pain. Conservative management includes manual medicine techniques, pelvic stabilization exercises to allow dynamic postural control, and muscle balancing of the trunk and lower extremities. Interventional treatments include sacroiliac joint, intra-articular joint injections, radiofrequency neurotomy, prolotherapy, cryotherapy, and surgical treatment. The evidence for intra-articular injections and radiofrequency neurotomy has been shown to be limited in managing sacroiliac joint pain.
- SourceAvailable from: Michael Seidman[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: While clinicians generally accept that musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) can arise from specific tissues, it remains difficult to confirm specific sources. Based on evidence supported by diagnostic utility studies, doctors of chiropractic functioning as members of a research clinic created a diagnostic classification system, corresponding exam and checklist based on strength of evidence, and in-office efficiency. THE DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONTAINS ONE SCREENING CATEGORY, TWO PAIN CATEGORIES: Nociceptive, Neuropathic, one functional evaluation category, and one category for unknown or poorly defined diagnoses. Nociceptive and neuropathic pain categories are each divided into 4 subcategories. This article describes and discusses the strength of evidence surrounding diagnostic categories for an in-office, clinical exam and checklist tool for LBP diagnosis. The use of a standardized tool for diagnosing low back pain in clinical and research settings is encouraged.JCCA. Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. Journal de l'Association chiropratique canadienne 09/2013; 57(3):189-204.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is an underappreciated source of mechanical low back pain, affecting between 15 and 30% of individuals with chronic, nonradicular pain. Predisposing factors for SIJ pain include true and apparent leg length discrepancy, older age, inflammatory arthritis, previous spine surgery, pregnancy and trauma. Compared with facet-mediated and discogenic low back pain, individuals with SIJ pain are more likely to report a specific inciting event, and experience unilateral pain below L5. Owing in part to its size and heterogeneity, the pain referral patterns of the SIJ are extremely variable. Although no single physical examination or historical feature can reliably identify a painful SIJ, studies suggest that a battery of three or more provocation tests can predict response to diagnostic blocks. Evidence supports both intra- and extra-articular causes for SIJ pain, with clinical studies demonstrating intermediate-term benefit for both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections. In those who fail to experience sustained relief from SIJ injections, radiofrequency denervation may provide significant relief lasting up to 1 year. This review covers all aspects of SIJ pain, with the treatment section being primarily focused on procedural interventions.Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 01/2013; 13(1):99-116. · 2.96 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To study the possible effects of various diagnostic strategies and the relative contribution of various structures in order to determine the optimal diagnostic strategy in treating patients with noncompressive pain syndromes. Prospective, nonrandomized cohort study of 83 consecutive patients with noncompressive pain syndromes resistant to repeated courses of conservative treatment. The follow-up period was 18 months. Nucleoplasty was effective in cases of discogenic pain; the consequences related to false positive results of the discography were significant. The most specific criterion was 80% pain relief after facet joint blocks, whereas 50% pain relief and any subjective pain relief were not associated with a significant increase in the success rate. A considerable rate of false negative results was associated with 80% pain relief, whereas 50% pain relief after facet joint blocks showed the optimal ratio of sensitivity and specificity. Facet joint pain was detected in 50.6% of cases (95% confidence interval 44.1%-66.3%), discogenic pain in 16.9% cases (95% confidence interval 9.5%-26.7%), and sacroiliac joint pain in 7.2% cases (95% confidence interval 2.7%-15%). It was impossible to differentiate the main source of pain in 25.3% of cases. It is rational to adjust the diagnostic algorithm to the probability of detecting a particular pain source and, in doing so, reduce the number of invasive diagnostic measures to evaluate a pain source. False positive results of diagnostic measures can negatively affect the overall efficacy of a particular technology; therefore, all reasons for the failure should be studied in order to reach an unbiased conclusion. In choosing diagnostic criteria, not only should the success rate of a particular technology be taken into consideration but also the rate of false negative results. Acceptable diagnostic criteria should be based on a rational balance of sensitivity and specificity.Journal of Pain Research 01/2013; 6:289-96.