Management of Sacroiliac Joint Pain

Chronic Low Back Pain: History, Symptoms, Pain Mechanisms, and Treatment

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is the most frequently reported cause of years lived with disability. Identifying the anatomical structures or dysfunction contributing to patients' symptoms is critical to guiding treatment. The etiology of back pain and differential diagnosis is often broad, ranging from non-degenerative cLBP (trauma, tumor, inflammation, infection, etc.) to degenerative (also described as nonspecific) cLBP. After eliminating suspicion for more insidious causes of cLBP, a thorough investigation can be conducted in an attempt to identify a source of degenerative cLBP. Degenerative cLBP can originate from many sources, and a detailed understanding of the structures potentially involved is invaluable for an accurate diagnosis. This review article aims to provide a broad overview of the utility of clinical history, physical exam findings, imaging findings, and diagnostic procedures in identifying the cause of patients' cLBP. We provide a framework to help guide clinicians by dividing the structures into groups as follows: anterior vertebral column, posterior vertebral column, and extra-vertebral pain. For each condition listed, we touch on the treatment options that can be considered.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Computed Tomography Review After Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint With Aggressive Joint Decortication and Joint Compression

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common, underrecognized source of low back pain. We evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) using a novel, minimally invasive SIJF system emphasizing compressive forces across an aggressively debrided SIJ. We retrospectively reviewed data from a continuous set of patients presenting to a large, tertiary care hospital from September 2017 to August 2019. All patients received the novel SIJF device. Outcomes were assessed at 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, plus radiographic evaluation of fusion status. Data from 75 patients were analyzed. At 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, the ODI score improved by 10.5 points (P=.002), 17.4 points (P<.0001), and 23.6 points (P<.0001), respectively, while the NRS score improved by 4.6 points (P<.0001), 4.4 points (P<.0001), and 4.6 points (P<.0001), respectively. SANE scores indicated high levels of patient satisfaction (81.0%, 92.18%, and 89.2%, respectively). PROMIS physical function scores improved by 2.65 points, 3.30 points, and 3.63 points, respectively, while PROMIS mental health scores showed changes of -1.93 points, 1.57 points, and -0.47 points, respectively. A review of computed tomography scans demonstrated grade 3 fusion (complete) in 81% of cases at a mean of 371 days postoperatively. There was one revision case for a malpositioned implant. The use of a novel SIJF device emphasizing compressive forces provided early, durable improvements in patient-reported outcomes and extremely high patient satisfaction. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):101-107.].

How Do Spinal Parameters Change in Patients Who Have Improvement of Low Back Pain After Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Many studies have demonstrated that low back pain (LBP) improves after total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the mechanism underlying this improvement remains unclear. We aimed to investigate changes in the spinal parameters of patients who had LBP improvement after THA to elucidate the mechanism of LBP improvement.

METHODS

We included 261 patients who underwent primary THA between December 2015 and June 2021 and had a preoperative visual analog scale score of ≥ 2 for LBP. The patients were classified into the LBP-improved or LBP-continued groups based on the visual analog scale for LBP at 1 year after THA. Preoperative and postoperative changes in the coronal and sagittal spinal parameters were compared between the 2 groups after propensity score matching for age, sex, body mass index, and preoperative spinal parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients (61.7%) were classified into the LBP-improved group. After 85 patients in both groups were matched, the LBP-improved group showed significant differences in spinal parameter changes, which were a higher lumbar lordosis (LL) (P = .04) and lower sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (P = .02) and pelvic incidence (PI) minus LL (PI-LL) (P = .01) postoperatively, whereas the LBP-continued group showed worsened changes in LL and SVA and PI-LL mismatch.

CONCLUSION

Patients who had LBP improvement after THA had significant differences in spinal parameter changes in LL, SVA, and PI-LL. These spinal parameters may be the key factors in the mechanism of LBP improvement after THA.

Comparative Efficacy of Clinical Interventions for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis With Preliminary Design of Treatment Algorithm

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify the most effective clinical treatment method for sacroiliac joint (SIJ)-related pain based on the systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the comparative efficacy of clinical interventions for sacroiliac joint pain by pooling the randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Our team conducted a systematic review and NMA of RCTs to determine the most effective clinical treatment for SIJ-related pain. We searched the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for RCTs until February 2023. The PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines were followed. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Based on the search strategy and inclusion criteria, our systematic review and NMA included 9 randomized studies with 652 participants. Research has mainly focused on various radiofrequency sources, but their number is still low. In the network analysis, according to the NMA and mean ranking probabilities for the improvement of pain intensity (PI) and quality of life (QoL), sacroiliac joint fusion and cooled radiofrequency were associated with high treatment rank for improving PI and QoL in patients with sacroiliac joint pain.

CONCLUSION

This NMA suggest that SIJ fusion and cooled radiofrequency could be potential options for improving the QoL and relieving pain in patients with SIJ-related pain. Comparison studies of outcomes between these 2 procedures with solid methodology and a low risk of bias would be very beneficial to identify the optimal treatment option for this challenging disease.

YouTube as a source of information on sacroiliac joint injection: A reliability and quality analysis

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injection is recommended for both diagnosis and relief of SIJ pain. YouTube has become a widely used source for health professionals and patients to obtain information about various procedures but the quality of YouTube videos including medical content is questionable. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of SIJ injection videos on YouTube. This cross-sectional study was conducted through March 2022 by searching the phrase "sacroiliac joint injection" on YouTube. After resetting search history top 100 videos were screened. Duration of videos, number of views, number of likes, number of comments, view ratio (number of views/d), time passed since upload date, guide used for injection, and source of videos were recorded. The DISCERN and the Global Quality Scale were used to assess the quality and reliability of the videos. Of the 100 videos screened 42 videos met the inclusion criteria. The videos (73.8%) were predominantly uploaded by physicians. Most frequently used guide for injections was ultrasound with 45.4%. According to the DISCERN classification, 35.7% of the videos were "very poor," 30.9% were "poor," 21.4% were "fair," 7.1% were "good" and 4.7% were "excellent." Physicians and patients should be aware of that many of the videos about SIJ injections are categorized as "poor" or "very poor," which means they may mislead trainees, resulting in inadequate treatments.

Sacroiliitis: A Review on Anatomy, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Introduction

Sacroiliitis is an inflammation of one or both of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, most often resulting pain in the lower back that can extend down the legs. Pain arising from the SI joint can be difficult to diagnose and treat due to the intricate surrounding ligamentous structure, nerve innervation, and its role in transferring weight from the upper body to the lower limbs. SI joint dysfunction accounts for up to 25% of cases of lower back pain and has a debilitating effect on patient functionality. This review aims to provide comprehensive coverage of all aspects of SI joint pain, with a specific focus on differential diagnosis and treatment.

Methods

Current literature on SI joint pain and inflammation, other etiologies of lower back pain, and new treatment options were compiled using the databases PubMed and Cochrane and used to write this comprehensive review. There were no restrictions when conducting the literature search with regard to publication date, study language, or study type.

Results

The diagnosis protocol of SI joint pain arising from sacroiliitis usually begins with the presentation of lower back pain and confirmatory diagnostic testing through fluoroscopy joint block. Reduction in pain following the anesthetic is considered the golden standard for diagnosis. The treatment begins with the conservative approach of physical therapy and analgesics for symptom relief. However, refractory cases often require interventional methods such as corticosteroid injections, prolotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, and even SI joint fusion surgery.

Conclusion

SI joint pain is a complex problem that can present with varying patterns of pain due to uncertainty regarding its innervation and its prominent surrounding structure. It is therefore especially important to obtain a thorough history and physical on top of diagnostic tests such as a diagnostic block to properly identify the source of pain. Conservative treatment options with physical therapy and analgesics should be attempted first before interventional strategies such as ablation, injections, and prolotherapy can be considered. SI joint fusion surgery is a solution to cases in which previous methods do not provide significant relief.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

The efficacy of primary sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain caused by sacroiliac joint pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Conduct a systematic review to quantify the effect of primary sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) for the treatment of sacroiliac (SI) joint pathology on patient reported outcomes.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched prior to August 18th, 2020 for all English-Language studies involving the treatment of SIJ pathology through SIJF and/or conservative management (CM). The quality of included studies was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcome measure was the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for low back pain. Secondary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the incidence of adverse reactions.

RESULTS

A total of 564 patients and six studies were included. The overall quality of evidence analyzed by this review was low (GRADE = 0). Five out of the six studies were industry funded. The VAS standardized mean difference (SMD) between SIJF and CM at three months and six months follow-up was - 1.4 [95% confidence interval - 2.3, - 0.6] and - 1.5 [95% CI - 1.8, - 1.1]. The ODI SMD between SIJF and CM scores at three months and 6 months follow-up was - 0.9 [95% CI - 1.1, - 0.7] and - 1.1 [95% CI - 1.6, - 0.5]. The odds ratio of adverse reactions due to SIJF compared to CM was 1.9 [95% CI 0.1, 42.8].

CONCLUSION

Based on the limited number of independent trials with long-term follow-up, SIJF shows potential as a surgical treatment option for SIJ pathology.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42020206149 (25th September 2020).

Effect of Sacroiliac Joint Pain on Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Matched Comparative Cohort Analysis at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) may frequently have co-existing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain. It is known that patients with lower back pain undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) have inferior outcomes; however, it is unclear what the effect of SIJ pain is on outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To determine whether patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with SIJ pain either subjectively or on physical examination achieve similar postoperative improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with patients without SIJ pain at 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with SIJ pain were matched in a 1:2 ratio to controls without SIJ pain. Baseline demographics, as well as postoperative PROs and rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at 2-year follow-up were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients (75 hips) with SIJ pain were matched to 150 control patients (150 hips) without SIJ pain. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all PROs at 2 years (P < .05 for all). Patients with SIJ pain had significantly lower postoperative PRO scores for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) (SIJ pain: 80.4 ± 22.4 vs no SIJ pain: 88.0 ± 15.1; P = .006), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (SIJ pain: 73.2 ± 22.8 vs no SIJ pain: 80.0 ± 17.3; P < .001), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 questionnaire (iHOT-12) (SIJ pain: 61.7 ± 25.9 vs no SIJ pain: 73.7 ± 23.7; P = .008). There were no statistically significant differences in improvement (delta) in PRO scores between the 2 groups (P > .05 for all). The SIJ pain group had significantly lower achievement of MCID for the HOS-ADL (SIJ pain: 65.2% vs no SIJ pain: 80.5%; P = .044) but not HOS-SS, mHHS, or iHOT-12 (P > .05 for all). The SIJ pain group had significantly lower achievement of PASS for the mHHS (SIJ pain: 27.5% vs no SIJ pain: 45.3%; P = .030) and iHOT-12 (SIJ pain: 31.0% vs no SIJ pain: 56.0%; P = .010) but not the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS (P > .05 for both). Only 4.1% of patients with SIJ pain and 2.4% of controls required revision surgery or converted to THA at the time of final follow-up (P = .69).

CONCLUSION

Patients with FAIS and SIJ pain on history or physical examination experience significant improvement in PROs at 2 years after hip arthroscopy. However, they may be less likely to achieve the MCID or PASS and have significantly lower postoperative PROs compared with a matched cohort of patients without SIJ pain. Overall rates of revision and conversion to THA were similarly low in both groups.

The Specifics of Non-specific Low Back Pain: Re-evaluating the Current Paradigm to Improve Patient Outcomes

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of pain and debility worldwide and the most frequent reason for work-related disability. Global expenditures related to LBP are staggering and amount to billions of dollars each year in the United States alone. Yet, despite the considerable healthcare resources consumed, the care provided to patients with LBP has regularly been cited as both ineffective and exorbitant. Among the myriad reasons for this suboptimal care, the current approach to evaluation and management of patients with LBP is a likely contributor and is hitherto un-investigated. Following the current methodology, over 90% of patients with LBP are provided with no specific diagnosis, are managed inconsistently, and receive no express preventative care. We believed that this approach added costs and promoted chronic unresolved pain and disability. This narrative review highlights problems with the current methodology, proposes a novel concept for categorizing patients with LBP, and recommends strategies for improvement. Stratifying patients according to the etiology, in lieu of the prospects for morbidity, the strategy proposed in this article may help ascertain the cause of patient's LBP early, consolidate treatments, permit timely preventative measures, and, as a result, may improve patient outcomes.

Minimally Invasive and Conservative Interventions for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Review of Recent Literature

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is responsible for approximately 15-25% of reported back pain. Patients with SIJ pain report some of the lowest quality of life scores of any chronic disease. Understanding of the physiology and pathology of the SI joint has changed dramatically over the years, and SI joint pain and injury can now be thought of in two broad categories: traumatic and atraumatic. Both categories of SI joint injury are thought to be caused by inflammation or injury of the joint capsule, ligaments, or subchondral bone in the SI joint. Treatment of SI joint pain usually involves a multi-pronged approach, utilizing both, multi-modal medical pain control and interventional pain/surgical techniques such as steroid injections, radiofrequency nerve ablation, and minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis. Though conservative management through multi-modal pain control and physical therapy have their role as first line therapies, an increasing body of evidence supports the use of minimally invasive procedures, both as adjuvant treatments to conservative management and as second line therapies for patient's that fail first line treatment.

Review of Sacroiliac Joint Injection Techniques

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the review is to evaluate the current evidence on techniques for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections using landmark, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT) guidance.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to find all relevant retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled (RCT) studies where SIJ injections were performed under ultrasound, fluoroscopy, and CT guidance.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of eight studies were identified with suitable data for inclusion. There were two RCTs, four prospective, and two retrospective studies included. Case reports or case series were excluded. A total of 420 patients were enrolled across all eight studies. CT guidance provided the most accurate needle placement in the SIJ injections followed by fluoroscopy, which was more accurate than ultrasound. Landmark-guided injections were not accurate. Accurate needle placement in SIJ confirms SIJ-mediated pain and injection of corticosteroids leads to improvement in pain and/or disability outcome measures regardless of guidance technique. Diagnostic CT-guided SIJ injections should be performed prior to consideration of SIJ fusion.

Osteopathic approach to sacroiliac joint pain in pregnant patients

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the management of sacroiliac (SI) joint pain in pregnant patients. Although SI joint pain is highly prevalent among pregnant patients, the unique anatomy of the joint is rarely discussed in a clinical setting. This paper provides comprehensive review of the epidemiology, anatomy, alarm findings, standard treatment, osteopathic assessment, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) of the SI joint, and it provides a general and in-depth understanding of the SI joint pain in pregnant patients and its management.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion-a Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sacroiliac dysfunction is an important cause of low back pain with significant impact on quality of life and daily activities. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MIS SI fusion) is an effective treatment for patients who failed non-surgical strategies. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical outcomes and complications of this surgical technique.

RECENT FINDINGS

For patients with SI joint dysfunction, MIS SI fusion reduced pain and disability as measured by Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Index and improved quality of life as measured by Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Satisfaction rates were higher in the SI fusion group when compared to the conservative management. In recent clinical trials, adverse events occurred with a similar rate in the first 6 months for patients assigned in the conservative management versus patients assigned to MIS SI fusion. MIS SI fusion is an effective and safe procedure for patients with sacroiliac dysfunction who failed non-surgical strategies. This procedure provides rapid as well as sustained pain relief, improvement in back function, high patient satisfaction, with low rate of complications.

Impact of diagnosis and type of sacroiliac joint fusion on postoperative complications

PURPOSE

Two main surgical approaches are available for fusing the sacroiliac joint (SIJ): an open or minimally invasive (MIS) approach. The purpose of this study was to analyze the associated total hospital charges and postoperative complications of the MIS and open approach.

METHODS

Using the 2016 and 2017 National Readmission Database, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 2521 patients who received a SIJ fusion with an open (N = 1990) or MIS (N = 531) approach for diagnosed sacrum pain, sacroiliitis, sacral instability, or spondylosis. Each cohort was analyzed for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

We identified 604 patients diagnosed with sacrum pain, 1142 with sacroiliitis, 315 with spondylosis, and 288 with sacral instability. Patients who received the open approach for sacrum pain had significantly higher rates of novel post-procedural pain (p = 0.045) and novel lumbar pathology (p = 0.015) within 30 days. On 30-day follow-up, patients with sacroiliitis treated with open SIJ fusion had significantly higher rates of novel postprocedural pain compared to those treated with MIS fusion (p = 0.045). Patients who received the open approach for spondylosis resulted in significantly higher rates of non-elective readmission within 30 days compared to the MIS approach (p < 0.0001). In addition, the open technique for spondylosis resulted in significantly higher rates of non-elective readmissions for infection within 30 days (p = 0.014). On 30-day follow-up, patients with sacral instability treated with open SIJ fusion had significantly higher rates of UTI (p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that there exist unique postoperative complications that arise after SIJ fusion specific to preoperative diagnosis and surgical approach.

Effectiveness of kinesiotaping in pregnant women with sacroiliac joint pain: A randomised controlled study

AIM

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is an especially common cause of pain during pregnancy. Treatment options during pregnancy are very limited in order to reduce pain and increase the quality of life. We aimed to determine the efficacy of kinesiotaping (KT) in the treatment of SIJ pain in pregnant women.

METHODS

A total of 50 pregnant women with SIJ pain were included in the study. Patients were randomised into two groups as KT and sham KT groups. Women in the KT group underwent a total of 5 weeks of KT once per week; the sham KT group also underwent 5 weeks of KT applications, but without tension in the kinesiotape. Patients were assessed before and 5 weeks after the treatment with a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire (PGQ) for disability and quality of life.

RESULTS

The KT and sham KT groups were similar in terms of age, parity, gravidas, gestational week and body mass index. At the beginning of the study, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in their VAS, RMDQ or PGQ scores. Five weeks later, the KT group showed significant improvement in all parameters, but no significant differences were observed for the sham KT group in terms of VAS, RMDQ or PGQ.

CONCLUSIONS

KT treatment improved the pain levels, functioning and quality of life among pregnant women with SIJ pain.

Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis

Objective

To report patient‐reported outcomes of minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion as a case series.

Methods

This study was a retrospective cohort study of patients 18 years of age and older who underwent a minimally invasive SI joint fusion by a single surgeon between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. Routine demographic data, characteristics, and relevant surgical and clinical data were all collected for this group. In addition, patients completed preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Short Form 36 (SF‐36) questionnaires to assess outcomes. Patient selection for SI fusion was based on short‐term resolution of symptoms (80% or greater relief) with an image‐guided intra‐articular injection of local anesthetic. Routine statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Fisher's exact test, or χ² analysis as appropriate.

Results

This study included 19 patients comprising 24 SI fusions, with a mean follow‐up of 58 months. The average patient age was 50 years and the average surgical blood loss was 25 cc. Men comprised 79% of the cohort. The VAS score improved from 7 to 3 (P = 0.0001). SF‐36 physical function, role limitations due to physical health, and role limitations due to emotional health improved to a statistically significant extent. General health was not significantly changed. Every patient showed improvement in their SF‐36 physical function scores (mean 40 preoperatively to 55 at final follow up) and 18 of 19 showed improvement in the VAS score (mean 7 preoperatively to 3 at final follow‐up).

Conclusion

In appropriately selected patients, minimally invasive SI joint fusion results in decreased pain and improved physical functioning of patients, which is sustained for more than 4 years post‐procedure.

iFuse Implant System for Treating Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Treatment and management of sacroiliac joint pain is often non-surgical, involving packages of care that can include analgesics, physiotherapy, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency ablation. Surgical intervention is considered when patients no longer respond to conservative management. The iFuse Implant System is placed across the sacroiliac joint using minimally invasive surgery, stabilising the joint and correcting any misalignment or weakness that can cause chronic pain. The iFuse system was evaluated in 2018 by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP). Clinical evidence for iFuse suggests improved pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and quality of life compared to non-surgical management. The company (SI-Bone^®) submitted two cost models indicating that iFuse was cost saving compared with open surgery and non-surgical management. Clinicians advised that non-surgical management was the most appropriate comparator and Cedar (a health technology research centre) made changes to the model to test the impact of higher acquisition and procedure costs. Cedar found iFuse to be cost incurring by approximately £560 per patient at 7 years. During the consultation period, the company reduced the cost of some iFuse consumables, and Cedar extended the time horizon to test the assumption that iFuse would become cost saving over time. These changes indicated that iFuse becomes cost saving at 8 years (approximately £129 per patient), after which the cost saving continues to increase. NICE published guidance in October 2018 recommending that the case for adoption of the iFuse system in the UK National Health Service (NHS) was supported by the evidence.

Diagnosis and interventional pain management options for sacroiliac joint pain

The sacroiliac (SI) joint is among the most common sources of chronic low back pain, accounting for 15%–30% of patients presenting chronic low back pain. The complex anatomic structures, nerve innervation, and functional biomechanisms of the SI region make it challenging to diagnose and treat the SI joint as a pain source. In addition to physical therapy and medication for treating SI joint pain, multiple interventional measures including steroid injection, radiofrequency ablation, prolotherapy, and SI joint fusion have been proposed with various efficacies. This article describes the etiology, risk factors, and diagnostic methods as well as the different treatment modalities, focusing on interventional pain management options for patients suffering from SI joint pain.