Search

Background: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction is one of the most common causes of low back pain. The aim of our study was to determine whether combined injection (intra and periarticular) of sacroiliac joint provides greater pain relief than intra-articular injection., Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial between two groups. The first group involved thirty patients treated with combined injection (intra- and periarticular) of a mixture of methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg and local anesthetic into a symptomatic sacroiliac joint. The second group (30 patients) received the same mixture only intra-articular. Diagnostic block was done for all cases. All patients failed to respond to medical treatment before proceeding to the injection procedure., Results: Over 6 months of follow-up, there were statistically significant improvements in patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection according to pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared with intra-articular group. Comparing both groups, there was significant difference in the 1-month VAS (one month after the procedure) as the P value was 0.010, and in the 6-month VAS (6 months after the procedure) as the P value was 0.007. There was no significant difference in the pre-VAS (P value was 0.795) and immediate post-VAS (one week after the procedure) as the P value were 0.145. No complications were reported after the procedure., Conclusions: Although both groups provide statistically significant pain relief, patients who received combined sacroiliac joint injection have significantly greater clinical improvement as regard to those who received only intra-articular injection.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of intra- and extra-articular sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, which injection is more beneficial, and whether fluoroscopy improves outcomes., Patients and Methods: This patient- and evaluator-blinded comparative effectiveness study randomized 125 participants with SIJ pain from April 30, 2014, through December 12, 2017, to receive fluoroscopically guided injections into the joint capsule (group 1) or "blind" injections to the point of maximum tenderness using sham radiographs (group 2). The primary outcome was average pain on a 0 to 10 scale 1 month after injection. A positive outcome was defined as at least a 2-point decrease in average pain score coupled with positive (>3) satisfaction on a Likert scale from 1 to 5., Results: For the primary outcome, no significant differences were observed between groups (mean ± SD change from baseline, -2.3±2.4 points in group 1 vs -1.7±2.3 points in group 2; 95% CI, -0.33 to 1.36 points for adjusted difference; P=.23), nor was there a difference in the proportions of positive blocks (61% vs 62%) or 1-month categorical outcome (48% vs 40% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; P=.33). At 3 months, the mean ± SD reductions in average pain (-1.8±2.1 vs -0.9 ± 2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.58 points for adjusted difference; P=.02) and worst pain (-2.2±2.5 vs -1.4±2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.66 points for adjusted difference; P=.049) were greater in group 1 than 2, with other outcome differences falling shy of statistical significance., Conclusion: Although fluoroscopically guided injections provide greater intermediate-term benefit in some patients, these differences are modest and accompanied by large cost differences., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02096653., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: This randomized trial compared ultrasound (US)- and fluoroscopy-guided sacral lateral branch (SLB) blocks. We hypothesized that US would require a shorter performance time., Methods: Forty patients who required unilateral sacral lateral branch blocks for chronic low back pain were randomized to US or fluoroscopy guidance. Before the performance of the assigned block, an investigator who was not involved in patient care carried out baseline analgesic testing. With US, the dorsal sacroiliac ligament, the sacroiliac joint, and the interosseous ligament were probed with a 22-gauge block needle. The patient was asked to rate the level of discomfort using an 11-point numerical rating scale.After the analgesic test, attending anesthesiologists or supervised trainees carried out the SLB blocks. The local anesthetic agent (lidocaine 2%) was identical in all subjects. In the US group, local anesthetic (1.5 mL) was first injected on the lateral crest at the mid-point between S2 and S3. Subsequently, 2 more injections of 0.5 mL were carried out on the lateral crest, immediately cephalad to S2 and at the S1 level. In the fluoroscopy group, SLB blocks were performed according to a previously described 17-injection technique, which involves 9 skin entry sites and the targeting of the L5 posterior root and S1-S3 sacral lateral branches. A 0.4-mL volume of local anesthetic was deposited at each target point. The performance time, number of needle passes, and the incidence of vascular breach were recorded during the performance of the block.Twenty minutes after the end of local anesthetic injection, the same investigator who performed preblock analgesic testing carried out postblock testing in an identical manner., Results: Compared with fluoroscopy, the US technique was associated with a shorter performance time (267.5 ± 99.3 vs 628.7 ± 120.3 seconds; P < 0.001), fewer needle passes and a lower incidence of vascular breach (0 vs 10 occurrences; P = 0.001). However, the block effect (ie, the proportional decrease in numerical rating scale between preblock and postblock analgesic testing) was similar in both groups. Furthermore, no statistical differences were found in the proportions of patients achieving complete analgesia at each test site. The level of experience (ie, expert vs novice operator) significantly affected performance time with US but not with fluoroscopy. No procedural complications were recorded with either imaging modality during the 30-day follow-up period., Conclusions: Compared with their fluoroscopic counterparts, US-guided SLB blocks require a shorter performance time as well as fewer needle passes and carry a lower risk of vascular breach.

Objectives: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections have been used to provide short-term relief of SIJ pain. In this study, the authors investigated a new technique using a superior approach., Methods: Twenty four patients with chronic SI joint paint were recruited. Each patient was treated with a single SIJ intra-articular injection plus a periarticular injection of local anesthetic and corticosteroid in one procedure. Technical accuracy of the intra-articular procedure was determined by having 2 independent observers review and rate the quality of arthrograms obtained. Treatment effects were evaluated using a numerical rating scale, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and global perceived effect (GPE)., Results: Both independent observers agreed that satisfactory arthrograms were obtained in all patients. Pain scores and disability were significantly reduced at 2 weeks and 4 weeks after treatment. Nineteen patients (79%) reported satisfaction with treatment. No serious adverse effects were encountered., Conclusions: The superior approach consistently achieves good access to the SI joint, and achieves outcomes that are compatible with those of other techniques. The superior approach constitutes an alternative to other techniques for injections into the SI joint., (© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Back mice, or episacroiliac lipoma, represent a potentially treatable cause of low back pain that may be under-recognized in clinical practice. Despite being well characterized based on clinical history and physical examination findings, implementation of appropriate treatment may be delayed or missed based on a lack of familiarity with the diagnosis., Objectives: In this case report and literature review, we describe a 47-year-old woman with history of persistent low back pain who presented with a pain exacerbation consistent with a back mouse. The history, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, differential diagnosis, potential mechanisms for pain, and treatment options for back mice were then reviewed., Study Design: Case report and literature review., Setting: Academic university-based pain management center., Results: Studies included one randomized clinical trial, 4 cross-sectional studies, 8 case reports or series, and 16 other publications prior to 1967., Limitations: A single case report., Conclusions: Firm, rubbery, mobile nodules that are located in characteristic regions of the sacroiliac, posterior superior iliac, and the lumbar paraspinal regions may represent fatty tissue that has herniated through fascial layers. When painful, these back mice may be confused with other causes of low back pain. In particular, the presence of point tenderness may mimic myofascial pain, and reports of radicular pain may imitate herniated nucleus pulposus. However, back mice may be distinguished from other entities based on findings from the history and physical examination such as absence of neurological deficit. Treatment consisting of injection of local anesthetic into the nodule with or without corticosteroid followed by repeated, direct needling has been reported to relieve pain in many case reports. The one clinical trial comparing injection of local anesthetic to normal saline, which did not include repeated needling, found only mild and transient benefit in the treatment group.

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pathology is a common etiologic cause for 10 - 27% of cases of mechanical low back pain (LBP) below the L5 level. In the absence of definite clinical or radiologic diagnostic criteria, controlled blocks of the SIJ have become the choice assessment method for making the diagnosis of SIJ pain. The SI joint is most often characterized as a large, auricular-shaped, diarthrodial synovial joint. In reality, its synovial characteristic is limited only to the distal third and anterior third. In SIJ interventions, the lateral view has been underutilized. In our technique, we used the lateral view to create a three-dimensional view of the SIJ to aid in gauging the accurateness of the contrast spread and to obtain a precise block. After obtaining appropriate fluoroscopic images, a curved tip spinal needle was directed into the inferior aspect of the SIJ using a posterior approach. As the needle contacts firm tissues on the posterior aspect of the joint, position of the needle tip is checked using lateral fluoroscopy. In the lateral view, the needle tip position is manipulated to keep it in the anterior third of the SIJ and contrast is injected. Our criteria for accurate SIJ block, in posteroanterior (PA) view, is the injection of the contrast medium should outline the joint space and the contrast medium should be seen to travel cephalad along the joint line. In the lateral view, the contrast medium most densely outlines the parameter of the joint. We have utilized this method with good effect in approximately 30 cases over one year. Out of 30 cases, needle position and contrast spread was satisfactory in 28 and 27 cases, respectively. So satisfactory needle placement and contrast spread was in 93% and 87% cases. Pain relief of 80% or more after intra-articular injection of local anesthetic was seen in 50% (15 of 30) patients; pain relief of 50 - 79% was witnessed in 30% (9 of 30) patients. Thus, pain decreased 50% or more in 80% (24 of 30) of the joints. Out of 24 joints where we got satisfactory needle position and contrast spread, 23 joints got more than 50% relief. Thus, if needle position and contrast spread is satisfactory as per the criteria, pain relief of 50% or more was in 96% (23 of 24) of joints. There are few possible limitations with this study like difficulty to go up to the anterior third of the SIJ, it may be more painful as a narrow joint line has to be travelled in depth, sciatic numbness due to drug leak, or injuring the pelvic structure. Advantages of this method are that depth and level of the needle tip for a SIJ block is described for the more precise block. This will reduce false positive and false negative results, i.e., sensitivity and specificity of SIJ blocks and results for diagnostic blocks become more reliable. It will also reduce the chances of a case getting abandoned due to inappropriate contrast spread obscuring the fluoroscopic landmarks. As we know the depth of the needle, the chances of injuring pelvic structures become less and safety improves.

Background: The iliolumbar ligament plays an important biomechanic role in anchoring the spine to the pelvic ring and stabilizing the sacroiliac joint. Iliolumbar syndrome is a back pain condition caused by pathology of the iliolumbar ligament. History and physical examination are important in the assessment of back pain, but they lack sufficient specificity. Injection of small volumes of local anesthetic into the structure considered to be the source of the pain (i.e. the iliolumbar ligament) increases the specificity of the diagnostic workup., Objective: To describe an ultrasound - guided technique for injecting the iliolumbar ligament., Study Design: Case report based on knowledge of topographic anatomy and sonoanatomy., Setting: Outpatient clinic., Methods: A patient with a clinical picture suggestive of iliolumbar syndrome was selected. An ultrasound-guided injection of the iliolumbar ligament with local anesthetic was performed. We recorded the patient's subjective assessment of pain and the change in range of movement and pain scores during provocative tests., Results: Following the injection, the patient's pain score decreased, provocation tests became negative, and the range of movement increased., Limitations: Case report. Target specificity and dispersion of local anesthetic spread not confirmed with an independent technique (i.e. magnetic resonance imaging)., Conclusions: Ultrasound guidance allows the selective deposition of small volumes of local anesthetic into structures believed to cause soft tissue back pain and thus to confirm or exclude the working diagnosis. Further studies are needed to confirm our conclusions and to prove the clinical feasibility of this technique.

Objective: To determine the physiologic effectiveness of multi-site, multi-depth sacral lateral branch injections., Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study., Setting: Outpatient pain management center., Patients: Twenty asymptomatic volunteers., Background: The dorsal innervation to the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is from the L5 dorsal ramus and the S1-3 lateral branches. Multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch blocks were developed to compensate for the complex regional anatomy that limited the effectiveness of single-site, single-depth lateral branch injections., Interventions: Bilateral multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch green dye injections and subsequent dissection on two cadavers revealed a 91% accuracy with this technique. Session 1: 20 asymptomatic subjects had a 25-g spinal needle probe their interosseous (IO) and dorsal sacroiliac (DSI) ligaments. The inferior dorsal SIJ was entered and capsular distension with contrast medium was performed. Discomfort had to occur with each provocation maneuver and a contained arthrogram was necessary to continue in the study. Session 2: 1 week later; computer randomized, double-blind multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch blocks injections were performed. Ten subjects received active (bupivicaine 0.75%) and 10 subjects received sham (normal saline) multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch injections. Thirty minutes later, provocation testing was repeated with identical methodology used in session 1., Outcome Measures: Presence or absence of pain for ligamentous probing and SIJ capsular distension., Results: Seventy percent of the active group had an insensate IO and DSI ligaments, and inferior dorsal SIJ vs 0-10% of the sham group. Twenty percent of the active vs 10% of the sham group did not feel repeat capsular distension. Six of seven subjects (86%) retained the ability to feel repeat capsular distension despite an insensate dorsal SIJ complex., Conclusion: Multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch blocks are physiologically effective at a rate of 70%. Multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch blocks do not effectively block the intra-articular portion of the SIJ. There is physiological evidence that the intra-articular portion of the SIJ is innervated from both ventral and dorsal sources. Comparative multi-site, multi-depth lateral branch blocks should be considered a potentially valuable tool to diagnose extra-articular SIJ pain and determine if lateral branch radiofrequency neurotomy may assist one with SIJ pain.

We describe a case report and technique for using a portable ultrasound scanner and a curvilinear transducer (4-5MHz) (SonoSite Micromaxx SonoSite, Inc. 21919 30th Drive SE Bothwell W. A.) to guide sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injection. A 42-year-old male presented with chronic lower back pain centered on his left SIJ. His pain averaged 7 out of 10 (numerical rating scale). For the ultrasound-guided SIJ injection the patient was placed in the prone position. The ultrasound transducer was oriented in a transverse orientation at the level of the sacral hiatus. Here the sacral cornuae were identified. Moving the transducer laterally from here, the lateral edge of the sacrum was identified. This bony edge was followed in a cephalad direction with the transducer maintained in a transverse orientation. A second bony contour, the ileum, was identified. The cleft between both bony contours represented the sacroiliac joint. This was found at 4.5 cm depth. Real-time imaging was used to direct a 22G spinal needle into the SIJ, where solution was injected under direct vision. The patient's pain intensity decreased to a 2 out of 10 (numerical rating scale). Function improved and the patient was able to return to work. These improvements were maintained at 16 weeks. Ultrasound guidance does not expose patients and personnel to radiation and is readily accessible. Ultrasound-guided SIJ injections may have particular applications in the management of chronic lower back pain in certain clinical scenarios (e.g. pregnancy). Future studies to demonstrate efficacy and reproducibility are needed.

Introduction: Image-guided sacroiliac joint injections are frequently employed for both diagnostic and therapeutic relief of low back pain., Case Report: An 83-year-old male with chronic lumbrosacral pain previously responsive to right sacroliac joint injections presented for repeat injection. His medical history included Parkinsonism and stool incontinence. Forty-two hours after the injection, he developed fever, dyspnea, and crepitus on the right buttock and thigh. Surgical debridement was recommended, but the family wished for comfort care only. The patient died hours later. The autopsy revealed Gram positive bacilli consistent with Clostridial myonecrosis., Discussion: Pyogenic sacroiliitis is rare and usually occurs in the setting of trauma, drug abuse, or extraspinal infections. Joint infections with Clostridium have been reported after traumatic events including puncture, surgery, and abrasions. Clostridium spores are resistant to chemical preparations used for skin sterilization and require high heat for destruction. Possible practice guidelines with patients that are stool incontinent include mechanical wash prior to sterile preparation and placement of an occlusive sterile dressing after injection to prevent stool contamination of the needle puncture site. As with all rare complications, large scale studies are needed to better identify risk factors to formulate practice management strategies.

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a multitest regimen of 5 sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain provocation tests with fluoroscopically controlled double SIJ blocks using a short- and long-acting local anesthetic in order to reduce the exposure of patients to unnecessary invasive SIJ procedures., Design: Prospective, observational study., Setting: Hospital setting., Participants: Sixty patients with chronic low back pain., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measures: Visual analog scale score and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve., Results: Twenty-seven patients responded positively to the blocks, of whom 23 were found positive after the multitest regimen and 4 were negative. For the nonresponders (n=33), these figures were 7 positive and 26 negative. The calculated sensitivity and specificity were .85 (95% confidence interval [CI], .72-.99) and .79 (95% CI, .65-.93), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were .77 (95% CI, .62-.92) and .87 (95% CI, .74-.99), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.02 (95% CI, 2.04-7.89); the negative likelihood ratio was .19 (95% CI, .07-.47). The area under the ROC curve was .799., Conclusions: The test regimen with 3 or more positive tests is indicative of SIJ pain. It can be used in early clinical decision making to reduce the number of unnecessary minimally invasive diagnostic SIJ procedures.

Study Design: This prospective study consisted of the evaluation of a double sacroiliac block in patients with low back pain., Objectives: To determine the prevalence of sacroiliac pain in a selected population of patients suffering from low back pain, and to assess certain pain provocation tests., Summary of Background Data: Previous studies have implicated the sacroliac joint as a potential etiology of back and leg pain, but none has tested double anesthetic blocks in a prospective fashion., Methods: Fifty-four patients with unilateral low back pain, pain mapping compatible with a sacroiliac origin, tenderness over the sacroiliac joint, and no obvious source of pain in the lumbar spine were selected for a double anesthetic block. The procedure consisted of a through clinical examination with a visual analog scale, testing of sacroiliac pain provocation tests followed by a first screening block with a short-acting anesthetic. A second examination consisting of the same tests assessed the efficacy of the first block. If results were positive, a confirmatory block was performed. All blocks were performed under fluoroscopic guidance., Results: Nineteen patients had a positive response to the first block. Among them, 10 (18.5%) were temporarily relieved by the confirmatory block. No pain provocation test reached statistical significance., Conclusion: The present study suggests the sacroiliac joint is an uncommon but real source of low back pain. The accuracy of some of the presumed "sacroiliac pain provocations tests" is questioned.