Bronsard N, Pelletier Y, Darmante H, Andréani O, de Peretti F, Trojani C. Sacroiliac joint syndrome after lumbosacral fusion.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2020;
106:1233-1238. [PMID:
32900669 DOI:
10.1016/j.otsr.2020.05.012]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2019] [Revised: 04/16/2020] [Accepted: 05/11/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
One-third of low back pain cases are due to the sacroiliac (SI) joint. The incidence increases after lumbosacral fusion. A positive Fortin Finger Test points to the SI joint being the origin of the pain; however, clinical examination and imaging are not specific and minimally contributory. The gold standard is a test injection of local anesthetic. More than 70% reduction in pain after this injection confirms the SI joint is the cause of the pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decrease in pain on a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) after intra-articular injection into the SI joint. We hypothesised that intra-articular SI injection will significantly reduce SI pain after lumbosacral fusion.
METHODS
All patients with pain (NRS>7/10) suspected of being caused by SI joint syndrome 1 year after lumbosacral fusion with positive Fortin test were included. Patients with lumbar or hip pathologies or inflammatory disease of the SI joint were excluded. Each patient underwent a 2D-guided injection of local anesthetic into the SI joint. If this failed, a second 2D-guided injection was done; if this also failed, a third 3D-guided injection was done. Reduction of pain on the NRS by>70% in the first 2 days after the injection confirmed the diagnosis. Whether the injection was intra-articular or not, it was recorded. Ninety-four patients with a mean age of 57 years were included, of which 70% were women.
RESULTS
Of the 94 patients, 85 had less pain (90%) after one of the three injections. The mean NRS was 8.6/10 (7-10) before the injection and 1.7/10 after the injection (0-3) (p=0.0001). Of the 146 2D-guided injections, 41% were effective and 61% were intra-articular. Of the 34 3D-guided injections, 73% were effective and 100% were intra-articular.
DISCUSSION
This study found a significant decrease in SI joint-related pain after intra-articular injection into the SI joint in patients who still had pain after lumbosacral fusion. If this injection is non-contributive when CT-guided under local anesthesia, it can be repeated under general anesthesia with 3D O-arm guidance. This diagnostic strategy allowed us to confirm that pain originates in the SI joint after lumbosacral fusion in 9 of 10 patients.
CONCLUSION
If the first two CT-guided SI joint injections fail, 3D surgical navigation is an alternative means of doing the injection that helps to significantly reduce SI joint-related pain after lumbosacral fusion.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
IV, retrospective study.
Collapse