Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXTSacroiliac (SI) joint pain causes significant disability and impairment to quality of life (QOL). Minimally invasive SI joint fusion is increasingly used to relieve chronic SI joint pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment.PURPOSETo systematically review the existing literature to assess the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive SI joint fusion.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGSystematic review.DATA SOURCESPubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and a clinical trial registry from database inception to June 30, 2021.STUDY SELECTIONEligible studies were primary research studies published in the English language, enrolled adults with SI joint pain, and compared SI joint fusion to nonsurgical interventions or alternative minimally invasive procedures. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs) that reported effectiveness (pain, physical function, QOL, opioid use) or safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs], revision surgeries) and uncontrolled studies that reported safety outcomes.DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESISData were abstracted into structured forms; two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias using standard instruments; certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE.RESULTSForty studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCSs, and 35 uncontrolled studies) were included.Minimally invasive SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System appeared to result in larger improvements in pain (two RCTs: mean difference in visual analog scale -40.5 mm, 95% CI, -50.1 to -30.9; -38.1 mm, p<.0001) and larger improvements in physical function (mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index -25.4 points, 95% CI, -32.5 to -18.3; -19.8 points, p<.0001) compared to conservative management at 6 months. Improvements in pain and physical function for the RCTs appeared durable at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Findings were similar in one CCS. The two RCTs also found significant improvements in QOL at 6 months and 1 year. Opioid use may be improved at 6 months and 1 to 2 years. AEs appeared higher in the fusion group at 6 months. The incidence of revision surgery varied by study; the highest was 3.8% at 2 years.Two CCSs compared the effectiveness of alternative minimally invasive fusion procedures. One CCS compared iFuse to the Rialto SI Fusion System and reported no differences in pain, function, QOL, and revision surgeries from 6 months to 1 year. One CCS compared iFuse to percutaneous screw fixation and reported significantly fewer revisions among iFuse participants (mean difference -61.0%, 95% CI, -78.4% to -43.5%).The 35 uncontrolled studies had serious limitations and reported heterogeneous safety outcomes. Two of the larger studies reported a 13.2% incidence of complications from minimally invasive SI joint fusion at 90 days using an insurance claims database and a 3.1% incidence of revision surgery over 2.5 years using a postmarket surveillance database.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients meeting diagnostic criteria for SI joint pain and who have not responded to conservative care, minimally invasive SI joint fusion is probably more effective than conservative management for reducing pain and opioid use and improving physical function and QOL. Fusion with iFuse and Rialto appear to have similar effectiveness. AEs appear to be higher for minimally invasive SI joint fusion than conservative management through 6 months. Based on evidence from uncontrolled studies, serious AEs from minimally invasive SI joint fusion may be higher in usual practice compared to what is reported in trials. The incidence of revision surgery is likely no higher than 3.8% at 2 years. Limited evidence is available that compares different minimally invasive devices.     

坎地沙坦致血管神经性水肿及骶髂关节疼痛

1例63岁女性患者因高血压给予坎地沙坦酯8mg/d,口服3天后,患者出现口腔咽部水肿,腰腿疼痛.停药7天后骶髂关节疼痛加剧后出现抽搐,半坐位后出现呼吸困难,意识丧失,大动脉波动消失,抢救后心跳恢复,无自主呼吸,支持治疗,肝肾功能进行性减弱,支持治疗5天死亡.     

Cooled radiofrequency application for treatment of sacroiliac joint pain

Background  

The unavailability of an effective and long-lasting treatment for sacroiliac-based pain has led researchers to study the efficacy of radiofrequency in denervation. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of novel cooled radiofrequency application for sacral lateral-branch denervation.     

CT引导经皮置钉治疗病理性骶髂关节疼痛

目的：探讨在CT引导下经皮微创技术置入空心拉力螺钉治疗病理性骶髂关节疼痛。方法：骶髂关节转移肿瘤患者8例，男4例，女4例；年龄12～83岁，平均53岁。单侧转移5例，双侧3例。肺癌2例，乳腺癌1例，卵巢癌1例，非霍奇金淋巴瘤1例，横纹肌肉瘤1例，骨髓瘤1例，前列腺癌1例。试行在CT引导下经皮微创技术置入空心拉力螺钉稳定病理性骶髂关节不稳。术前和术后通过Ennek—ing疼痛评分进行比较。结果：8例均获随访，随访时间4个月～29个月，平均18．2个月。均1周内疼痛缓解，无并发症发生，3例术后6个月内死亡，余5例疼痛明显减轻。结论：CT引导下经皮置入空心拉力螺钉能有效缓解病理性骶髂关节不稳所致的疼痛。     

Radiofrequency sacroiliac joint denervation for sacroiliac syndrome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Radiofrequency (RF) denervation of the sacroiliac (SI) joint has been advocated for the treatment of sacroiliac syndrome, yet no clinical studies or case series support its use. METHODS: We report the results of a consecutive series of 50 SI joint RF denervations performed in 33 patients with sacroiliac syndrome. All patients underwent diagnostic SI joint injections with local anesthetic before denervation. Changes in visual analog pain scores (VAS), pain diagrams, physical examination (palpation tenderness over the joint, myofascial trigger points overlying the joint, SI joint pain provocation tests, and range of motion of the lumbar spine), and opioid use were assessed pre- and postdenervation. RESULTS: The criteria for successful RF denervation were at least a 50% decrease in VAS for a period of at least 6 months; 36.4% of patients (12 of 33) met these criteria. Failure of denervation correlated with the presence of disability determination and pain on lateral flexion to the affected side. The average duration of pain relief was 12.0 +/- 1.2 months in responders versus 0.9 +/- 0.2 months in nonresponders (P < or = 0.0001). A positive response was associated with an atraumatic inciting event. Successful denervation was associated with a change in the pain diagram and a reduction in the pattern of referred pain, a normalization of SI joint pain provocation tests, and a reduction in the use of opioids. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that RF denervation of the SI joint can significantly reduce pain in selected patients with sacroiliac syndrome for a protracted time period. Moreover, certain abnormal physical findings (i.e., SI joint pain provocation tests) revert to normal for the duration of the analgesia.     

腰椎融合术后骶髂关节疼痛的临床研究现状

正在过去数十年中,腰椎融合术在脊柱外科广泛开展,用于治疗退变性腰椎间盘疾病、腰椎管狭窄症、腰椎滑脱症及脊柱畸形等疾病~([1])。随着内固定技术的进步及内固定材料的发展,腰椎融合术的成功率得以大大提高,但仍然存在着5%~30%的失败率~([2]),且有部分患者在术后会残留持续性腰部疼痛和下肢麻木症状,或在术后出现新发的与术前不完全相同的疼痛症状。这种腰椎、腰骶部或下肢远     

Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of bilateral sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion, using a new technique, in patients with a chronic SIJ syndrome. Seventeen patients with chronic low back pain, with a positive response to specific diagnostic tests for the SIJ, were considered candidates for bilateral sacroiliac fusion. The surgical indication was based on the results of local anaesthetic joint infiltration, temporary external fixation or bone scan. Ten patients had had previous surgery on the lumbar spine. Bilateral posterior SIJ fusion was performed with internal fixation and decortication of the sacroiliac joint, using a separate approach to each joint. Local bone grafting was performed. At the time of follow-up (on average 39 months after surgery), 3 patients reported moderate or absent pain, 8 marked pain and 6 severe pain. Seven patients showed a symptomatic non-union; union occurred in only 6 cases. Eighteen percent of the patients were satisfied, but in the other 82% the results were not acceptable. Reoperation was performed in 65% of the patients. Our results with bilateral posterior SIJ fusion were disappointing, which may be related with difficulties in patient selection, as well as with surgical technique. Better diagnostic procedures and possibly other surgical techniques might provide more predictable results, but this remains to be demonstrated.     

Exercise treatment for sacroiliac pain

The reciprocal relationship of the latissimus dorsi on one side and the gluteus maximus on the other side has been demonstrated anatomically. To demonstrate this relationship by muscle action, electromyographic studies were performed in 15 healthy individuals. This formed the baseline for evaluation of 5 symptomatic patients with sacroiliac dysfunction. Abnormal hyperactivity of the gluteus muscle on the involved side and increased activity of the latissimus on the contralateral side was contrasted with the normal function of the healthy individuals. All patients in the rotary strengthening exercise program improved in strength and return of myoelectric activity to more normal patterns.     

腰椎/腰骶融合术后骶髂关节痛的诊断与治疗

大约90%的人在其一生中会经历下腰痛,骶髂关节是产生慢性下腰痛的重要来源之一,据报道由骶髂关节病变所致下腰痛者占所有下腰痛者的15%～30%[1].近年来,腰椎/腰骶融合术得到了广泛的普及,它在解决下腰/腰骶关节病变的同时,也带来了新的问题,常有患者抱怨术后出现持续性的下腰痛,一些学者认为骶髂关节继发性病变可能是造成这种持续性疼痛的原因.     

Diagram specific to sacroiliac joint pain site indicated by one-finger test

Background  The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) can be a source of low back and lower limb pain. The SIJ pain can originate not only from the joint space but also from the ligaments supporting the joint. Its diagnosis has been difficult because the physical and radiological examinations have proved less than satisfactory. Thus, to know the specific sites of SIJ pain, if these exist, could be very useful for making the diagnosis. The purpose of the present study was to identify the main site of SIJ pain according to the patient’s pointing with one finger and to confirm the site by a pain-provocation test and periarticular lidocaine injection. Methods  Forty-six of 247 consecutive patients with low back pain at our outpatient clinic, who could indicate with one finger the main site of the pain, which presented at only one site and was reproducible, were the subjects of this study. The main site of pain was anatomically confirmed by fluoroscopy. Then, a periarticular SIJ injection was performed. The patients were blindly assessed and a diagram of the main site of the SIJ pain was made. Results  There were 19 males and 27 females and the age averaged 50 years. Eight patients showed a positive placebo response and were excluded from this study. Twenty-five of the remaining 38 patients indicated the main site of pain at the posterior-superior iliac spine (PSIS) or within 2 cm of the PSIS, and 18 of these patients showed a positive effect with periarticular SIJ block. The other 13 patients, including 2 patients with a positive response to the periarticular block, did not show the PSIS as the main site of pain. Conclusions  Our study clearly indicated that when patients point to the PSIS or within 2 cm of it as the main site of low back pain, using one finger, the SIJ should be considered as the origin of their low back pain.     

Effect of periarticular and intraarticular lidocaine injections for sacroiliac joint pain: prospective comparative study

Background The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) can be a source of low back pain. Previous studies indicated that SIJ pain could originate from both the joint capsule and the posterior ligamentous tissues. It has not been clarified as to whether an intraarticular or periarticular injection procedure is more effective for this type of pain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of two injection procedures prospectively. Methods After a pain provocation test, an intraarticular injection of local anesthetic (2% lidocaine) was performed on the first 25 consecutive patients with SIJ pain and a periarticular injection on another 25. The periarticular injections were given to one or more sections of the posterior periarticular area of the SIJ and to another section in the extracranial portion. The effect of these injections was assessed using the “restriction of activities of daily life” scoring system from the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Results The periarticular injection was effective in all patients, but the intraarticular one was effective in only 9 of 25 patients. An additional periarticular injection was performed in 16 patients who experienced no effect from the initial intraarticular injection and was considered effective in all of them. The injection into the middle of the periarticular area was more effective for SIJ pain. The improvement rate after the periarticular injection was 96%, which was significantly higher than that after the intraarticular injection, which was 62%. Conclusions For patients with SIJ pain, periarticular injection is more effective and easier to perform than the intraarticular injection and should be tried initially.     

Multiple Myeloma presenting as sacroiliac joint pain: a case report

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is the most common primary cancer of bone in adults. The clinical presentation of MM is varied and depends on the sites and extent of involvement. Most importantly for chiropractors, the leading clinical symptoms of MM are related to bone neoplasm and may mimic pain of musculoskeletal origin. The following is the case of a 56 year old male chiropractic patient presenting with a 6 month history of sacroiliac joint pain previously diagnosed and managed unsuccessfully as a hematoma by multiple providers. Physical examination, imaging, and laboratory investigations confirmed a diagnosis of MM. The case report describes relevant pathophysiology, clinical presentation, imaging, and management for MM, while illustrating key issues in patient management as they relate to chiropractic practice and the recognition of pathology in the context of musculoskeletal pain.     

Lateral branch blocks as a treatment for sacroiliac joint pain: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain arising from the sacroiliac (SI) joint is a common cause of low back pain for which there is no universally accepted, long-term treatment. Previous studies have shown radiofrequency (RF) procedures to be an effective treatment for other types of spinal pain. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of reducing SI joint pain by percutaneous RF lesioning of the nerves innervating the SI joint. METHODS: Eighteen patients with confirmed SI joint pain underwent nerve blocks of the L4-5 primary dorsal rami and S1-3 lateral branches innervating the affected joint. Those who obtained 50% or greater pain relief from these blocks proceeded to undergo RF denervation of the nerves. RESULTS: Thirteen of 18 patients who underwent L4-5 dorsal rami and S1-3 lateral branch blocks (LBB) obtained significant pain relief, with 2 patients reporting prolonged benefit. At their next visit, 9 patients who experienced >50% pain relief underwent RF lesioning of the nerves. Eight of 9 patients (89%) obtained >/=50% pain relief from this procedure that persisted at their 9-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SI joint pain who respond to L4-5 dorsal rami and S1-3 LBB, RF denervation of these nerves appears to be an effective treatment. Randomized, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate this procedure.     

Bed transfer for unilateral sacroiliac pain

A nontraditional transfer technique is found to be pain-free for a patient with unilateral sacroliac joint pain. This method emphasizes constant contact of both buttocks to the bed during the entire transfer process.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1984;6(2):140-141.     

骶髂关节结核的误诊及早期诊断

目的探讨骶髂关节结核误诊原因及提高其早期诊断措施。方法回顾性分析17例骶髂关节结核临床表现、体征及影像学特征，了解误诊情况。结果本组病例早期误诊率较高，17例中16例曾误诊为其他疾病。结论骶髂关节结核进展缓慢，早期症状及影像学表现不典型，且与骶髂关节其他疾病相类似是误诊的主要原因。掌握其发病特征，结合骶髂关节被动运动性疼痛试验检查，早期骶髂关节正位片及CT检查是提高其早期诊断的主要措施。