Reliability and validity of a new clinical test for assessment of the sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Acupotomy combined with Korean medicine treatment in a patient with acute sacroiliac pain unresponsive to conventional therapy: A case report

RATIONALE

Acute injury to the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) can result from high-energy external forces that cause a combination of axial loading and sudden rotational movements, resulting in severe pain that cannot be relieved by regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The treatment includes injections of steroids and local anesthetics to reduce pain and promote healing. Here, we report the case of a patient with acute sacroiliac pain who did not respond to conventional injection therapy.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 58-year-old male patient who did not exercise regularly experienced pain in his left groin and difficulty walking while kicking on his right leg. He received two injections and manual therapy at a local orthopedic clinic; however, his symptoms did not improve despite taking painkillers.

DIAGNOSES

Radiographic images showed no abnormalities. After confirming the cause of onset, pain pattern, physical examination, and tenderness, the patient was diagnosed with an acute SIJ sprain (static blood).

INTERVENTIONS

At the first visit, a single acupotomy was performed on the seven treatment points identified during the physical examination, and immediate improvement in symptoms was confirmed. From then on, Korean medicine (KM) treatments, such as acupuncture, cupping, chuna, and bee venom pharmacopuncture, were performed.

OUTCOMES

Immediately after acupotomy, groin pain improved by 80 %, gait immediately normalized, and the patient showed no symptoms at the 9th visit.

LESSONS

For SIJ-type groin pain that does not respond to existing treatments, immediate relief is achieved after a single acupotomy at the exact treatment point. Therefore, in the future, the importance of identifying a precise treatment point for SIJ pain should be recognized, and the use of Korean medicine treatment techniques, including acupotomy, should be considered.

Clinical examination of the sacroiliac joint

Introduction:

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) can be a nociceptive source of the pain in lower back. Clinical diagnosis of SIJ pain remains yet problematic. The cause of SIJ pain is multifactorial. The pain may be a result of an inflammatory disease, arthrosis, traumatic injury, infectious process or overload. The potential role in SIJ examination have pain provocation tests.

Objective:

To review and further discuss the validity of some of the mostly used clinical provocation tests such as Distraction test, Thigh Thrust test, Compression test, Sacral Thrust test, Patrick’s (FABER), Gaenslen’s test, Standing Flexion Test, Gillet Test and Shimpi Prone test.

Method:

A literature search was conducted using PubMed. Reviewed were studies between 2005 and 2020 in English, Slovak and Czech with keywords: sacroiliac joint, sacroiliac assessment, provocation tests. The methodology of studies was not considered.

Discussion:

It is challenging to determine whether SIJ is the actual source of the pain by using only one of the provocation tests. Therefore, it is beneficial to combine more compression tests, what will also increase the validity of testing. Other widely used SIJ tests are palpation test, however their validity is poor.

The Success Rate of Ultrasound-Guided Sacroiliac Joint Steroid Injections in Sacroiliitis: Are We Getting Better?

BACKGROUND

The sacroiliac joint is one of the most common sources of low back pain; however, it is difficult to place the needle accurately inside the joint space without image guidance. Improvement of ultrasound technology may lead to a high success rate for intra-articular drug deposition.

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of the success rate of ultrasound-guided intra-articular sacroiliac joint injection.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

METHODOLOGY

Ultrasound-guided injections were performed on 34 patients suffering from sacroiliitis. After injection of the drug solution and withdrawal of the needle, an anteroposterior fluoroscopy image was obtained and recorded for the injected joint to detect whether it was predominantly intra-articular or peri-articular. Clinical outcome using a numeric pain rating scale as well as limitation of physical functioning measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were determined.

RESULTS

Thirty-three injections (84.6%) were intra-articular, while 6 injections (15.4%) were peri-articular, as confirmed by fluoroscopy, with no statistical difference regarding clinical outcome between them. The baseline mean pain score decreased from 7.21 to 1.92 1 month after injection, and the mean ODI scores improved from 61.41% to 17.13%. Intervention was well tolerated, and 91.2% of patients were satisfied or mostly satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonography provides a high success rate of intra-articular sacroiliac joint injection as confirmed by fluoroscopy. No significant difference in clinical outcome between intra-articular and peri-articular injection was found.

Clinimetric properties of sacroiliac joint mobility tests: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews revealed poor reliability and validity for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mobility tests. However, these reviews were published nearly 20 years ago and recent evidence has not yet been summarised.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an up-to-date systematic review to verify whether recommendations regarding the clinical use of SIJ mobility tests should be revised.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

The literature was searched for relevant articles via 5 electronic databases. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. COSMIN checklists were used to appraise the methodological quality. Studies were included if they had at least fair methodology and reported clinimetric properties of SIJ mobility tests performed in adult patients with non-specific low back pain, pelvic (girdle) pain and/or SIJ pain. Only tests that can be performed in a clinical setting were considered.

RESULTS

Twelve relevant articles were identified, of which three were of sufficient methodological quality. These three studies evaluated the reliability of eight SIJ mobility tests and one test cluster. For the majority of individual tests, the intertester reliability showed slight to fair agreement. Although some tests and one test cluster had higher reliability, the confidence intervals around most reliability estimates were large. Furthermore, there were no validity studies of sufficient methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Considering the low and/or imprecise reliability estimates, the absence of high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies, and the uncertainty regarding the construct these tests aim to measure, this review supports the previous recommendations that the use of SIJ mobility tests in clinical practice is problematic.

Current Evidence for Diagnosis of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Standardized Terminology Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate and summarize current evidence for diagnosis of common conditions causing low back pain and to propose standardized terminology use.

METHODS

A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted from inception through December 2018. Electronic databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Methodological quality was assessed with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists.

RESULTS

Of the 3995 articles screened, 36 (8 systematic reviews and 28 individual studies) met final eligibility criteria. Diagnostic criteria for identifying likely discogenic, sacroiliac joint, and zygapophyseal (facet) joint pain are supported by clinical studies using injection-confirmed tissue provocation or anesthetic procedures. Diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain, sensitization (central and peripheral), and radicular pain are supported by expert consensus-level evidence. Criteria for radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication are supported by studies using combined expert-level consensus and imaging findings.

CONCLUSION

The absence of high-quality, objective, gold-standard diagnostic methods limits the accuracy of current evidence-based criteria and results in few high-quality studies with a low risk of bias in patient selection and reference standard diagnosis. These limitations suggest practitioners should use evidence-based criteria to inform working diagnoses rather than definitive diagnoses for low back pain. To avoid the unnecessary complexity and confusion created by multiple overlapping and nonspecific terms, adopting International Association for the Study of Pain terminology and definitions is recommended.