Dataset Information

Chronic sacroiliac joint pain: fusion versus denervation as treatment options.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN: Systematic reviewObjective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of fusion versus denervation for chronic sacroiliac joint pain after failed conservative management. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: METHODS of confirming the sacroiliac joint as a pain source have been extensively studied and reported in the literature. After confirmation of the origin of the pain by positive local anesthetic blocks, chronic sacroiliac joint pain is usually managed with a combination of medication, physical therapies, and injections. We have chosen to compare two alternative treatments for sacroiliac pain that was refractory to conservative therapies. METHODS: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating fusion or denervation for chronic sacroiliac joint pain after failed conservative management. Studies involving only conservative treatment or traumatic onset of injury were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified eleven articles (six fusion, five denervation) meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients report satisfaction after both treatments. Both treatments reported mean improvements in pain and functional outcome. Rates of complications were higher among fusion studies (13.7%) compared to denervation studies (7.3%). Only fusion studies reported infections (5.3%). No infections were reported among denervation patients. The evidence for all findings were very low to low; therefore, the relative efficacy or safety of one treatment over another cannot be established. CONCLUSIONS: Sacroiliac joint fusion or denervation can reduce pain for many patients. Whether a true arthrodesis of the joint is achieved by percutaneous techniques is open to question and whether denervation of the joint gives durable pain relief is not clear. Further comparative studies of these two techniques may provide the answers.

SUBMITTER: Ashman B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3427958 | biostudies-other | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sacroiliac joint pain is increasingly recognized as a cause of low back pain. We compared the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis using triangular titanium implants and conservative management in patients with chronic sacroiliac joint pain. METHODS:This study was a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial of adults with chronic sacroiliac joint pain assigned to either conservative management or sacroiliac joint arthrodesis with triangular titanium implants. The study end points included self-rated low back pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), back dysfunction (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and quality of life. Ninety percent of subjects in both groups completed the study. RESULTS:Between June 6, 2013, and May 15, 2015, 103 subjects were randomly assigned to conservative management (n = 51) or sacroiliac joint arthrodesis (n = 52). At 2 years, the mean low back pain improved by 45 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 37 to 54 points) after sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and 11 points (95% CI, 2 to 20 points) after conservative management, with a mean difference between groups of 34 points (p < 0.0001). The mean ODI improved by 26 points (95% CI, 21 to 32 points) after sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and 8 points (95% CI, 2 to 14 points) after conservative management, with a mean difference between groups of 18 points (p < 0.0001). Parallel improvements were seen in quality of life. In the sacroiliac joint arthrodesis group, the prevalence of opioid use decreased from 56% at baseline to 33% at 2 years (p = 0.009), and no significant change was observed in the conservative management group (47.1% at baseline and 45.7% at 2 years). Subjects in the conservative management group, after crossover to the surgical procedure, showed improvements in all measures similar to those originally assigned to sacroiliac joint arthrodesis. In the first 6 months, the frequency of adverse events did not differ between groups (p = 0.664). By month 24, we observed 39 severe adverse events after sacroiliac joint arthrodesis, including 2 cases of sacroiliac joint pain, 1 case of a postoperative gluteal hematoma, and 1 case of postoperative nerve impingement. The analysis of computed tomographic (CT) imaging at 12 months after sacroiliac joint arthrodesis showed radiolucencies adjacent to 8 implants (4.0% of all implants). CONCLUSIONS:For patients with chronic sacroiliac joint pain due to joint degeneration or disruption, minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis with triangular titanium implants was safe and more effective throughout 2 years in improving pain, disability, and quality of life compared with conservative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Project description:Sacroiliac joint fusions (SIJF) have been the subject of many research studies. The technical success of an SIJF is in part determined by whether osseous bridging occurs across the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). However, no validated SIJF assessment method has been described. Our objective was to document previously described SIJF assessment methods and define and validate a detailed assessment system for SIJF. Our results are only intended to establish computed tomography (CT)-based guidelines for SIJF to be used in a subsequent large clinical study to correlate them with clinical outcomes. The SIJF literature was reviewed to document previous descriptions of SIJF assessments. A detailed system was then developed for assessing SIJF from CT exams. To provide data that can be used to address a range of research questions, the system included assessing bridging bone relative to the SIJ anatomy, bridging bone immediately adjacent to the threaded implants crossing the joint, as well as bridging bone close to but not immediately adjacent to the implants. The system was applied to assessing SIJF from thin-slice CT exams in 19 patients 12 months following surgery. Two experienced radiologists implemented the assessment system, and in the event of a disagreement, an adjudicator was used. Most prior studies provide very little detail about how SIJF was assessed. Using the new assessment system, the agreement between the primary readers was substantial (0.67 using Gwet's AC1 statistic). Bridging bone representing a fusion of the SIJ was identified in most patients both immediately adjacent to the threaded implants crossing the joint, as well as distant to the implants. A detailed radiographic assessment system proved to be applicable to SIJF. The assessment system includes explicit language describing the location and extent of bridging bone across the SIJ. Standardization of the assessment of the SIJFs may allow for a more meaningful comparison of data between studies.

Project description:BackgroundEffective treatment of low back pain (LBP) originating in the lumbar and sacroiliac joints is difficult to achieve. The objective of the current study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of radiofrequency (RF) neurotomy versus conservative nonsurgical approaches for the management of chronic lumbar and sacroiliac joint pain.MethodsThe PICOS framework was adhered to (P [population]: patients with a history of chronic function-limiting lumbar and sacroiliac joint pain lasting at least 6 months; I [intervention]: RF neurotomy; C [comparator]: other nonsurgical treatments; O [outcomes]: the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), measurement for pain, and a quality of life (QoL) questionnaire; S [study design]: meta-analysis). Two trained investigators systematically searched Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases for relevant studies published in English through March 2019.ResultsPatients treated with RF neurotomy (n = 528) had significantly greater improvement in ODI scores, pain scores and QoL measured by EQ-5D compared with controls (n = 457); however, significant heterogeneity was observed when data were pooled from eligible studies. In subgroup analyses, patients who received RF neurotomy had a significantly greater improvement in ODI scores compared with those with sham treatment. Patients treated with RF achieved significantly greater improvement in pain scores compared with controls who received sham treatment or medical treatment. In a subgroup analysis of pain in the sacroiliac joint and in lumbar facet joints, the RF neurotomy group achieved a significantly greater improvement in ODI score and pain scores compared with the control group. The ODI score and pain score were improved after 2 months of follow up in the analyses stratified by follow-up duration.ConclusionsUse of RF neurotomy as an intervention for chronic lumbar and sacroiliac joint pain led to improved function; however, larger, more directly comparable studies are needed to confirm this study's findings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The evidence base supporting minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion (SIJF) surgery is increasing. The work relative value units (RVUs) associated with minimally invasive SIJF are seemingly low. To date, only one published study describes the relative work intensity associated with minimally invasive SIJF. No study has compared work intensity vs other commonly performed spine surgery procedures. METHODS:Charts of 192 patients at five sites who underwent either minimally invasive SIJF (American Medical Association [AMA] CPT® code 27279) or lumbar microdiscectomy (AMA CPT® code 63030) were reviewed. Abstracted were preoperative times associated with diagnosis and patient care, intraoperative parameters including operating room (OR) in/out times and procedure start/stop times, and postoperative care requirements. Additionally, using a visual analog scale, surgeons estimated the intensity of intraoperative care, including mental, temporal, and physical demands and effort and frustration. Work was defined as operative time multiplied by task intensity. RESULTS:Patients who underwent minimally invasive SIJF were more likely female. Mean procedure times were lower in SIJF by about 27.8 minutes (P<0.0001) and mean total OR times were lower by 27.9 minutes (P<0.0001), but there was substantial overlap across procedures. Mean preservice and post-service total labor times were longer in minimally invasive SIJF (preservice times longer by 63.5 minutes [P<0.0001] and post-service labor times longer by 20.2 minutes [P<0.0001]). The number of postoperative visits was higher in minimally invasive SIJF. Mean total service time (preoperative + OR time + postoperative) was higher in the minimally invasive SIJF group (261.5 vs 211.9 minutes, P<0.0001). Intraoperative intensity levels were higher for mental, physical, effort, and frustration domains (P<0.0001 each). After taking into account intensity, intraoperative workloads showed substantial overlap. CONCLUSION:Compared to a commonly performed lumbar spine surgical procedure, lumbar microdiscectomy, that currently has a higher work RVU, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative workload for minimally invasive SIJF is higher. The work RVU for minimally invasive SIJF should be adjusted upward as the relative amount of work is comparable.

Dataset Information

Chronic sacroiliac joint pain: fusion versus denervation as treatment options.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure