Fluoroscopically Guided vs Landmark-Guided Sacroiliac Joint Injections: A Randomized Controlled Study

5. Sacroiliac joint pain

INTRODUCTION

Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is defined as pain localized in the anatomical region of the SI joint. The reported prevalence of SI joint pain among patients with mechanical low back pain varies between 15% and 30%.

METHODS

In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of SI joint pain was updated and summarized.

RESULTS

Patient's history provides clues on the source of pain. The specificity and sensitivity of provocative maneuvers are relatively high when three or more tests are positive, though recent studies have questioned the predictive value of single or even batteries of provocative tests. Medical imaging is indicated only to rule out red flags for potentially serious conditions. The diagnostic value of SI joint infiltration with local anesthetic remains controversial due to the potential for false-positive and false-negative results. Treatment of SI joint pain ideally consists of a multidisciplinary approach that includes conservative measures as first-line therapies (eg, pharmacological treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, manual medicine, exercise therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and if necessary, psychological support). Intra- and extra-articular corticosteroid injections have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some people. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-3 (or 4) lateral branches has been shown to be efficacious in numerous studies, with extensive lesioning strategies (eg, cooled RFA) demonstrating the strongest evidence. The reported rate of complications for SI joint treatments is low.

CONCLUSIONS

SI joint pain should ideally be managed in a multidisciplinary and multimodal manner. When conservative treatment fails, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency treatment can be considered.

Cooled radiofrequency ablation versus standard medical management for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness study

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide, with sacroiliac joint pain comprising up to 30% of cases of axial lower back pain. Conservative therapies provide only modest relief. Although placebo-controlled trials show efficacy for sacral lateral branch cooled radiofrequency ablation, there are no comparative effectiveness studies.

METHODS

In this randomized, multicenter comparative effectiveness study, 210 patients with clinically suspected sacroiliac joint pain who obtained short-term benefit from diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections and prognostic lateral branch blocks were randomly assigned to receive cooled radiofrequency ablation of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-S3 lateral branches or standard medical management consisting of pharmacotherapy, injections and integrative therapies. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in low back pain score on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included measures of quality of life and function.

RESULTS

3 months post-treatment, the mean Numeric Rating Scale pain score for the cooled radiofrequency ablation group was 3.8±2.4 (mean reduction 2.5±2.5) compared with 5.9±1.7 (mean reduction 0.4±1.7) in the standard medical management group (p<0.0001). 52.3% of subjects in the cooled radiofrequency ablation group experienced >2 points or 30% pain relief and were deemed responders versus 4.3% of standard medical management patients (p<0.0001). Comparable improvements favoring cooled radiofrequency ablation were noted in Oswestry Disability Index score (mean 29.7±15.2 vs 41.5+13.6; p<0.0001) and quality of life (mean EuroQoL-5 score 0.68±0.22 vs 0.47±0.29; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with sacroiliac joint pain, cooled radiofrequency ablation provided statistically superior improvements across the spectrum of patient outcomes compared with standard medical management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03601949.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement

ABSTRACT

Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

EULAR points to consider for the use of imaging to guide interventional procedures in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs)

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based Points to Consider (PtC) for the use of imaging modalities to guide interventional procedures in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

METHODS

European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) standardised operating procedures were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve data on the role of imaging modalities including ultrasound (US), fluoroscopy, MRI, CT and fusion imaging to guide interventional procedures. Based on evidence and expert opinion, the task force (25 participants consisting of physicians, healthcare professionals and patients from 11 countries) developed PtC, with consensus obtained through voting. The final level of agreement was provided anonymously.

RESULTS

A total of three overarching principles and six specific PtC were formulated. The task force recommends preference of imaging over palpation to guide targeted interventional procedures at peripheral joints, periarticular musculoskeletal structures, nerves and the spine. While US is the favoured imaging technique for peripheral joints and nerves, the choice of the imaging method for the spine and sacroiliac joints has to be individualised according to the target, procedure, expertise, availability and radiation exposure. All imaging guided interventions should be performed by a trained specialist using appropriate operational procedures, settings and assistance by technical personnel.

CONCLUSION

These are the first EULAR PtC to provide guidance on the role of imaging to guide interventional procedures in patients with RMDs.

Pragmatic trials of pain therapies: a systematic review of methods

ABSTRACT

Pragmatic randomised clinical trials aim to directly inform clinical or health policy decision making. Here, we systematically review methods and design of pragmatic trials of pain therapies to examine methods, identify common challenges, and areas for improvement. Seven databases were searched for pragmatic randomised controlled clinical trials that assessed pain treatment in a clinical population of adults reporting pain. All screening steps and data extractions were performed twice. Data were synthesised descriptively, and correlation analyses between prespecified trial features and PRECIS-2 (PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2) ratings and attrition were performed. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-ID CRD42020178954. Of 57 included trials, only 21% assessed pharmacological interventions, the remainder physical, surgical, psychological, or self-management pain therapies. Three-quarters of the trials were comparative effectiveness designs, often conducted in multiple centres (median: 5; Q1/3: 1, 9.25) and with a median sample size of 234 patients at randomization (Q1/3: 135.5; 363.5). Although most trials recruited patients with chronic pain, reporting of pain duration was poor and not well described. Reporting was comprehensive for most general items, while often deficient for specific pragmatic aspects. Average ratings for pragmatism were highest for treatment adherence flexibility and clinical relevance of outcome measures. They were lowest for patient recruitment methods and extent of follow-up measurements and appointments. Current practice in pragmatic trials of pain treatments can be improved in areas such as patient recruitment and reporting of methods, analysis, and interpretation of data. These improvements will facilitate translatability to other real-world settings-the purpose of pragmatic trials.

Multicenter study evaluating factors associated with treatment outcome for low back pain injections

BACKGROUND

There has been a worldwide surge in interventional procedures for low back pain (LBP), with studies yielding mixed results. These data support the need for identifying outcome predictors based on unique characteristics in a pragmatic setting.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the association between over two dozen demographic, clinical and technical factors on treatment outcomes for three procedures: epidural steroid injections (ESIs) for sciatica, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for axial LBP. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported average pain intensity on a numerical rating scale (average NRS-PI) using linear regression. For SIJ injections and facet radiofrequency ablation, this was average LBP score at 1 and 3 months postprocedure, respectively. For ESI, it was average leg pain 1- month postinjection. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response (success).

RESULTS

346 patients were enrolled at seven hospitals. All groups experienced a decrease in average NRS-PI (p<0.0001; mean 1.8±2.6). There were no differences in change in average NRS-PI among procedural groups (p=0.50). Lower baseline pain score (adjusted coefficient -0.32, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.16, p<0.0001), depressive symptomatology (adjusted coefficient 0.076, 95% CI 0.039 to 0.113, p<0.0001) and obesity (adjusted coefficient 0.62, 95% CI 0.038 to 1.21, p=0.037) were associated with smaller pain reductions. For procedural outcome, depression (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91, 0.97, p<0.0001) and poorer baseline function (adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36, 0.96, p=0.034) were associated with failure. Smoking, sleep dysfunction and non-organic signs were associated with negative outcomes in univariate but not multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying treatment responders is a critical endeavor for the viability of procedures in LBP. Patients with greater disease burden, depression and obesity are more likely to fail interventions. Steps to address these should be considered before or concurrent with procedures as considerations dictate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02329951.

Value of imaging to guide interventional procedures in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider

OBJECTIVES

To summarise current data on the value of imaging to guide interventional procedures in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMDs) informing an European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology taskforce.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve prospective and retrospective studies published in English and comparing different (imaging) techniques, different settings and procedural protocols to guide interventions in patients with RMDs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos databases were searched through October 2021. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for randomised trials V.2 (ROB2), the RoB tool for Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions and the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies were included (most with moderate/high RoB); 49 were randomised controlled trials, three prospective cohort studies and 14 retrospective studies. Fifty-one studies compared either one imaging technique with another imaging technique, or with palpation-guided interventions. Ultrasound (US) was most frequently studied (49/51), followed by fluoroscopy (10/51). Higher accuracy was found for US or fluoroscopy compared with palpation-guided interventions. Studies comparing different imaging techniques (12/51) did not endorse one specific method. Different settings/equipment for imaging-guided procedures (eg, automatic vs manual syringes) were investigated in three studies, reporting heterogeneous results. Fifteen studies compared different imaging-guided procedures (eg, intra-articular vs periarticular injections).

CONCLUSION

Higher accuracy of needle positioning at joints and periarticular structures was seen in most studies when using imaging (especially US) guidance as compared with palpation-guided interventions with the limitation of heterogeneity of data and considerable RoB.

Waddell (Nonorganic) Signs and Their Association With Interventional Treatment Outcomes for Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

The rising use of injections to treat low back pain (LBP) has led to efforts to improve selection. Nonorganic (Waddell) signs have been shown to portend treatment failure for surgery and other therapies but have not been studied for minimally invasive interventions.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the association between Waddell signs and treatment outcome in 3 cohorts: epidural steroid injections (ESI) for leg pain and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections and facet interventions for LBP. Categories of Waddell signs included nonanatomic tenderness, pain during sham stimulation, discrepancy in physical examination, overreaction, and regional disturbances divulging from neuroanatomy. The primary outcome was change in patient-reported "average" numerical rating scale for pain intensity (average NRS-PI), modeled as a function of the number of Waddell signs using simple linear regression. Secondary outcomes included a binary indicator of treatment response. We conducted secondary and sensitivity analyses to account for potential confounders.

RESULTS

We enrolled 318 patients: 152 in the ESI cohort, 102 in the facet cohort, and 64 in the SIJ cohort, having sufficient data for primary analysis on 308 patients. Among these, 62% (n = 192) had no Waddell signs, 18% (n = 54) had 1 sign, 11% (n = 33) had 2, 5% (n = 16) had 3, 2% (n = 7) had 4, and about 2% (n = 6) had all 5 signs. The mean change in average NRS-PI in each of these 6 groups was -1.6 ± 2.6, -1.1 ± 2.7, -1.5 ± 2.5, -1.6 ± 2.6, -1 ± 1.5, and 0.7 ± 2.1, respectively, and their corresponding treatment failure rates were 54% (102 of 192), 67% (36 of 54), 70% (23 of 33), 75% (12 of 16), 71% (5 of 7), and 83% (5 of 6). In the primary analysis, an increasing number of Waddell signs were not associated with a significant decrease in average NRS-PI (coefficient [Coef] = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.43 to 0.05; P = .12). A higher number of Waddell signs were associated with treatment failure, with a 1.35 increased odds of treatment failure per cumulative number of signs (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas this study found no consistent relationship between Waddell signs and decreased mean pain scores, a significant relationship between the number of Waddell signs and treatment failure was observed.