MRI-guided sacroiliac joint injections in children and adults: current practice and future developments

Association of anatomical variants of the sacroiliac joint with bone marrow edema in patients with axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of sacroiliac joint variants in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) using MRI-based synthetic CT images and to evaluate their relationships with the presence of bone marrow edema, as this may potentially complicate diagnosing active sacroiliitis on MRI in patients with suspected axSpA.

METHODS

172 patients were retrospectively included. All patients underwent MRI because of clinical suspicion of sacroiliitis. The diagnosis of axSpA was made by a tertiary hospital rheumatologist. Two readers independently determined the presence of bone marrow edema and the presence of one or more of the nine known sacroiliac joint (SIJ) variants.

RESULTS

SIJ variants were common in axSpA patients (82.9%) and the non-SpA group (85.4%); there were no significant differences in prevalence. Bone marrow edema was frequently found in axSpA (86.8%) and non-SpA patients (34%). AxSpA patients with SIJ variants (except for accessory joint) demonstrated 4 to 10 times higher odds for bone marrow edema, however not statistically significant. The more variants were present in this group, the higher the chance of bone marrow edema. However, some multicollinearity cannot be excluded, since bone marrow edema is very frequent in the axSpA group by definition.

CONCLUSION

SIJ variants are common in axSpA and non-SpA patients. SIJ variants were associated with higher prevalence of bone marrow edema in axSpA patients, potentially due to altered biomechanics, except for accessory joint which may act as a stabilizer.

Infectious sacroiliitis: MRI- and CT-based assessment of disease extent, complications, and anatomic correlation

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency of MR and CT features of infectious sacroiliitis (ISI) and assess its extent and complications MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with ISI who were evaluated between 2008 and 2021 in a single center. Two radiologists reviewed MRI and CT images to determine the anatomical distribution (unilateral/bilateral, iliac/sacral bone, proximal/middle/distal), severity (bone marrow edema [BME]/periostitis/erosions), concurrent infection (vertebral/nonvertebral), and complications (abscess/probable adjacent osteomyelitis/cavitation/devitalized areas/sequestrum/pelvic venous thrombosis) of ISI. Interobserver reproducibility was assessed. Correlation analysis evaluated the effect of the causative microorganism on severity. Two human bodies were dissected to outline possible ways that ISI can spread.

RESULTS

Forty patients with ISI (40 years ± 22; 26 women) were evaluated. Ten patients had bilateral ISI. Concurrent vertebral infection was associated in 15% of cases. Reproducibility of sacral BME, periostitis, and reactive locoregional abnormalities was perfect (κ = 1). Reproducibility was low for erosion count (κ = 0.52[0.52-0.82]) and periarticular osteopenia (κ = 0.50[0.18-0.82]). Inflammatory changes were BME (42/42 joints), muscle edema (38/42), and severe periostitis along the ilium (33/37). Destructive structural changes occurred with confluent erosions (iliac, 20/48; sacral, 13/48), sequestrum (20/48), and cavitation (12/48). Complications occurred in 75% of cases, including periarticular abscesses (n = 30/47), probable adjacent osteomyelitis (n = 16/37), and pelvic thrombophlebitis (n = 3). Tuberculous ISI (6/40) correlated with sclerosis (rs = 0.45[0.16; 0.67]; p < 10-2) and bone devitalization (rs = 0.38[0.16; 0.67]; p = .02). The anatomical study highlighted the shared venous vascularization of sacroiliac joints, pelvic organs, and mobile spine.

CONCLUSION

Complications of ISI are frequent, including abscesses, adjacent osteomyelitis, and periostitis. ISI had bilateral involvement nonrarely and is commonly associated with another spinal infection.

Selective MR neurography-guided lumbosacral plexus perineural injections: techniques, targets, and territories

The T12 to S4 spinal nerves form the lumbosacral plexus in the retroperitoneum, providing sensory and motor innervation to the pelvis and lower extremities. The lumbosacral plexus has a wide range of anatomic variations and interchange of fibers between nerve anastomoses. Neuropathies of the lumbosacral plexus cause a broad spectrum of complex pelvic and lower extremity pain syndromes, which can be challenging to diagnose and treat successfully. In their workup, selective nerve blocks are employed to test the hypothesis that a lumbosacral plexus nerve contributes to a suspected pelvic and extremity pain syndrome, whereas therapeutic perineural injections aim to alleviate pain and paresthesia symptoms. While the sciatic and femoral nerves are large in caliber, the iliohypogastric and ilioinguinal, genitofemoral, lateral femoral cutaneous, anterior femoral cutaneous, posterior femoral cutaneous, obturator, and pudendal nerves are small, measuring a few millimeters in diameter and have a wide range of anatomic variants. Due to their minuteness, direct visualization of the smaller lumbosacral plexus branches can be difficult during selective nerve blocks, particularly in deeper pelvic locations or larger patients. In this setting, the high spatial and contrast resolution of interventional MR neurography guidance benefits nerve visualization and targeting, needle placement, and visualization of perineural injectant distribution, providing a highly accurate alternative to more commonly used ultrasonography, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography guidance for perineural injections. This article offers a practical guide for MR neurography-guided lumbosacral plexus perineural injections, including interventional setup, pulse sequence protocols, lumbosacral plexus MR neurography anatomy, anatomic variations, and injection targets.

The role of imaging in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a complex whole-organ disorder that involves molecular, anatomic, and physiologic derangement. Advances in imaging techniques have expanded the role of imaging in evaluating osteoarthritis and functional changes. Radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography (CT), and ultrasonography are commonly used imaging modalities, each with advantages and limitations in evaluating osteoarthritis. Radiography comprehensively analyses alignment and osseous features, while MRI provides detailed information about cartilage damage, bone marrow edema, synovitis, and soft tissue abnormalities. Compositional imaging derives quantitative data for detecting cartilage and tendon degeneration before structural damage occurs. Ultrasonography permits real-time scanning and dynamic joint evaluation, whereas CT is useful for assessing final osseous detail. Imaging plays an essential role in the diagnosis, management, and research of osteoarthritis. The use of imaging can help differentiate osteoarthritis from other diseases with similar symptoms, and recent advances in deep learning have made the acquisition, management, and interpretation of imaging data more efficient and accurate. Imaging is useful in monitoring and predicting the prognosis of osteoarthritis, expanding our understanding of its pathophysiology. Ultimately, this enables early detection and personalized medicine for patients with osteoarthritis. This article reviews the current state of imaging in osteoarthritis, focusing on the strengths and limitations of various imaging modalities, and introduces advanced techniques, including deep learning, applied in clinical practice.