Sacroiliac joint pain: is the medical world aware enough of its existence? Why not considering sacroiliac joint fusion in the recalcitrant cases?

Comparison between intra-articular and combined intra- and periarticular sacroiliac injection: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

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.

Contemporary Trends in Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Utilization in the Medicare Population by Specialty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction constitutes a leading cause of pain and disability. Although surgical arthrodesis is traditionally performed under open approaches, the past decade has seen a rise in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques and new federally approved devices for MIS approaches. In addition to neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, proceduralists from nonsurgical specialties are performing MIS procedures for SI pathology. Here, we analyze trends in SI joint fusions performed by different provider groups, along with trends in the charges billed and reimbursement provided by Medicare.

METHODS

We review yearly Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data from 2015 to 2020 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for all SI joint fusions. Patients were stratified as undergoing MIS or open procedures. Utilization was adjusted per million Medicare beneficiaries and weighted averages for charges and reimbursements were calculated, controlling for inflation. Reimbursement-to-charge (RCR) ratios were calculated, reflecting the proportion of provider billed amounts reimbursed by Medicare.

RESULTS

A total of 12 978 SI joint fusion procedures were performed, with the majority (76.5%) being MIS procedures. Most MIS procedures were performed by nonsurgical specialists (52.1%) while most open fusions were performed by spine surgeons (71%). Rapid growth in MIS procedures was noted for all specialty categories, along with an increased number of procedures offered in the outpatient setting and ambulatory surgical centers. The overall RCR increased over time and was ultimately similar between spine surgeons (RCR = 0.26) and nonsurgeon specialists (RCR = 0.27) performing MIS procedures.

CONCLUSION

Substantial growth in MIS procedures for SI pathology has occurred in recent years in the Medicare population. This growth can largely be attributed to adoption by nonsurgical specialists, whose reimbursement and RCR increased for MIS procedures. Future studies are warranted to better understand the impact of these trends on patient outcomes and costs.

Surgical Treatment of Patients with Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome: Comparative Study of Two Implants

The treatment of patients with ISJ dysfunction is difficult due to the multifactorial causes of pain and various problems in clarification. Treatment includes physical therapy, corticosteroids, prolotherapy, radiofrequency denervation and sacroiliac joint fusion. A new option for the surgical treatment of ISG dysfunction is the Torpedo implant system. For a safe fusion, only 2 implants are needed, which are available in lengths of 30-50 mm. The new implant system has been tested in pilot studies for efficacy and biocompatibility with good results. For further documentation for the Torpedo implant system, a comparative study against the iFuse system was carried out.Two different implants were used: Group 1: Deltacor Torpedo, Group 2: iFuse implants (Si-Bone). The data generated during admission and subsequent check-ups (VAS, ODI, opioid use) were entered into an evaluation file set up for this purpose. Follow-up appointments were set at 1 month, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.The data of 65 patients were evaluated comparatively. In all comparisons, only very small effect sizes were found with regard to the differences in the decrease in pain intensities, so that equivalent effectiveness of the two methods could initially be postulated from a clinical point of view. Most patients in both groups reported taking opioids to treat pain before surgery. According to the decrease in pain intensity, opioid treatment could be discontinued in some patients after the operation. After 12 months, the number of patients treated with opioids decreases to 23% in group 1 and to 17% in group 2. The success of the fusions with the two methods can also be proven by image documentation, from which the position of the implants can also be clearly recognised. In no case was there any loosening.Overall, the evaluation of this study allows the conclusion that both implant systems can be successfully used for the treatment of patients with ISJ syndrome. The present results should be confirmed in further comparative studies with the proposed evaluation methods.

Surgical and clinical efficacy of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery: a meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction has been shown to cause significant morbidity. Current treatment includes conservative management and surgical intervention. Previously published data reporting clinical and surgical outcomes reached conflicting conclusions. This protocol aims to conduct a meta-analysis to determine fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) SIJ fusions compared with conservative treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We drafted our protocol according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We will search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual search when necessary. Two independent reviewers will screen for eligibility by title/abstract, then full text, arbitrated by a third reviewer if necessary. The two reviewers will carry out a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for randomised controlled trial and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies tool for observational cohort studies. A third reviewer will arbitrate any disagreement. We will perform data synthesis using Review Manager (RevMan for Windows, V.5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (V.3.3.070). Meta-bias will be evaluated and confidence determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this review will not be required as no patient data is being collected. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021273481.

Advances in Pain Medicine: a Review of New Technologies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review highlights the interventional musculoskeletal techniques that have evolved in recent years.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent progress in pain medicine technologies presented here represents the ideal treatment of the pain patient which is to provide personalized care. Advances in pain physiology research and pain management technologies support each other concurrently. As new technologies give rise to new perspectives and understanding of pain, new research inspires the development of new technologies.

One-year results of minimally invasive fusion surgery of the sacroiliac joint as an alternative treatment after failed endoscopic thermal coagulation

BACKGROUND

While pain in the severe sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common cause of lower back pain, SIJ disease is often overlooked as a diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the extent of sufficient long-term pain relief and functional improvement in patients with SIJ syndrome that are treated with thermocoagulation. Some patients treated with thermocoagulation noted initial improvement, but the functionality and pain relief had limited duration and efficacy. Patients with insufficient improvement were recommended to undergo fusion surgery as an option for better and longer lasting results.

METHOD

Patients with a long history of back or pelvic problems were selected for the study. Endoscopic thermal coagulation of the SIJ was carried out. The follow-up examinations took place after 1, 3, 6, 12 months. In patients with insufficient pain relief and functionality after thermocoagulation, a fusion surgery was performed. The results of the fusion surgery were documented over a 12-month follow-up period. To carry out the statistical evaluation visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry-Disability-Index (ODI) and the consumption of opioids were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were included. The mean VAS values 12 months after thermocoagulation were 68.9. The ODI after 12 months was very near or somewhat higher than their baseline prior to the thermocoagulation. Thus, a fusion surgery was recommended. Thirty-three patients agreed to the fusion operation. The VAS values 12 months after fusion surgery decreased to 53.1. Analogous to the VAS values, the Oswestry index (ODI) showed a significant improvement after the fusion operation.

CONCLUSION

The success of surgical intervention in 88% of the SIJ syndrome patients with inadequate results 12 months after thermocoagulation proves the superiority of SIJ fusion surgery. This study showed long-lasting pain relief by an average of 65% and a median improvement in functional impairments of 60%. In view of these results, fusion surgery should be considered for patients without sufficient success of thermocoagulation.

Trends in Diagnosis and Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pathology Over the Past 10 Years: Review of Scientific Evidence for New Devices for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion

Sacroiliac (SI) joint pathology is a newly appreciated contributor to lower back pain. Sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) has grown rapidly in popularity in association with the advent of minimally-invasive surgical techniques. This has led to an explosion of new medical devices used for SIJF. The objective of this article is to outline clinical trends, summarize the current data, and categorize novel devices for SIJF. Trends in SI joint pathology and fusion were obtained via the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s (HCUP) National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database and Web of Science. To review literature on devices for SIJF, PubMed was searched using the Boolean phrase “sacroiliac joint AND (fusion OR arthrodesis)” since 2010. To establish a list of SIJF devices not represented in the literature, searches were performed on the FDA 510(k), premarket approval, and de novo databases, as well as Google and LinkedIn. Literature review yielded 11 FDA-approved devices for minimally invasive SIJF. Database query yielded an additional 22 devices for a total of 33 devices. Twenty-one devices used the lateral transiliac approach, six posterior allograft approach, three posterolateral approach, and three combined the lateral transiliac and posterolateral approaches. The evidence for the lateral transiliac approach is the most robust. Many novel devices have been developed for minimally invasive SIJF over the past 10 years. Further randomized comparative trials are warranted to evaluate different surgical approaches and novel devices at this time.

Sacroiliac joint fusion VS conservative management for chronic low back pain attributed to the sacroiliac joint: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is high prevalent and it is the leading cause of years lived with disability in both developed and developing countries. The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common reason that caused LBP. At present, the treatment of chronic LBP attributed to SIJ is mainly conservative treatment and surgical treatment. However, there are still controversies between the 2 treating methods, and there is no recognized standard of treatment or surgical indications. Recent publications indicated that minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis was safe and more effective improving pain, disability, and quality of life compared with conservative management in 2 years follow-up, which re-raise the focus of sacroiliac joints fusion. This paper will systematically review the available evidence, comparing the effectiveness of sacroiliac joint fusion and conservative therapy for the treatment of gait retraining for patients suffered from LBP attributed to the sacroiliac joint.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies in Pubmed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library will be synthesized. Inclusion criteria will be studies evaluating clinical outcomes (i.e., changes to pain and/or function) comparing sacroiliac joint fusion and conservative therapy in populations sacroiliac join related LBP; studies with less than 10 participants in total will be excluded. The primary outcomes measured will be pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and adverse events during treatment. Review Manager (Revman; Version 5.3) software will be used for data synthesis, sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias assessment. A funnel plot will be developed to evaluate reporting bias and Begg and Egger tests will be used to assess funnel plot symmetries. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to assess the quality of evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our aim is to publish this systematic review and meta-analysis in a peer-reviewed journal. Our findings will provide information comparing the efficacy and safety comparing sacroiliac joint fusion and non-surgical treatment for patients with LBP attributed to the sacroiliac joint. This review will not require ethical approval as there are no issues about participant privacy.