|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 207-210
Diagnosis and interventional pain management options for sacroiliac joint pain
Ching-Wei Chuang1, Sheng-Kai Hung2, Po-Ting Pan2, Ming-Chang Kao1
1 Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei; School of Medicine, Tzu Chi University, Hualien, Taiwan
2 Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei, Taiwan
|Date of Submission||01-Mar-2019|
|Date of Decision||15-Apr-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||02-May-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||07-Jun-2019|
Dr. Ming-Chang Kao
Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, 289, Jianguo Road, Xindian District, New Taipei
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
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.
Keywords: Diagnostic block, Low back pain, Radiofrequency, Sacroiliac joint injection, Sacroiliac joint pain
|How to cite this article:|
Chuang CW, Hung SK, Pan PT, Kao MC. Diagnosis and interventional pain management options for sacroiliac joint pain. Tzu Chi Med J 2019;31:207-10
|How to cite this URL:|
Chuang CW, Hung SK, Pan PT, Kao MC. Diagnosis and interventional pain management options for sacroiliac joint pain. Tzu Chi Med J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2022 Aug 9];31:207-10. Available from: https://www.tcmjmed.com/text.asp?2019/31/4/207/259892
| Introduction|| |
The sacroiliac (SI) joint is one of the most common sources of chronic back pain, accounting for 15%–30% of patients presenting chronic low back pain,. Moreover, the prevalence of SI joint pain resulting from failed back surgery has been estimated to be 29%. The SI joint is also the most likely source of low back pain in patients having undergone either lumbar or lumbosacral fusion surgeries,. Although SI joint dysfunction has resulted in a large proportion of chronic lower back pain, it has been underrated owing to the complexity of its etiology and the challenges in diagnostic evaluation. This article reviewed the etiology, diagnosis, and current treatments that focused on interventional modalities to treat SI joint pain.
| Anatomy And Nerve Innervation Of The Sacroiliac Joint|| |
The SI joint is the largest true synovial joint in the body. Although there is significant variability between individuals regarding the shape and size, the surface area of the SI joint is about 17.5 cm2, and the volume is 0.6–2.5 mL. However, the synovial cleft is narrow and decreases with age, 1–2 mm in younger adults and 0–1 mm in adults older than 70-year-old. Given the transfer of weight, impact absorption, stability and strength, the SI joint has a rough surface braced with strong ligaments and a network of muscles interlocking the pelvis and spine. Moreover, existing literature has established that, the innervation of the SI joint is highly variable even at different sides in the same person,. Fortin etal. pointed out that the innervation of the posterior joint and ligaments mainly comes from the S1–S3 dorsal rami with a contribution from L5. Furthermore, a variety of controlled studies reported the marked and prolonged effectiveness of the L5 dorsal ramus and the lateral branch of the S1–S3 neurotomy for chronic SI joint pain,. However, the ventral SI joint is less clinically relevant.
| Etiology Of Sacroiliac Joint Pain|| |
The etiological causes of SI joint pain are divided into traumatic and atraumatic. Traumatic causes include fall, motor vehicle collision, lifting and pregnancy, whereas atraumatic causes include previous lumbar fusion, cumulative injury, arthritis, scoliosis, inflammatory arthropathy, and infection. The pathological causes of SI joint pain consist of intra-articular and extra-articular causes. Intra-articular causes include arthritis (osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis), spondyloarthropathy, trauma, infection, and cystic disease, whereas extra-articular causes are composed of trauma/fractures, ligamentous injury, myofascial pain, enthesopathy, pregnancy, and cystic disease.
| Risk Factors Of Sacroiliac Joint Pain|| |
The risk factors for SI joint pain are obesity, leg length discrepancy, gait abnormalities, persistent strain or low-grade trauma (e.g., jogging), scoliosis, pregnancy, and spinal surgery (especially fusion to the sacrum). 10%–27% of patients with persistent mechanical lower back pain below L5 have pain secondary to the SI joint pathology. The prevalence of SI joint pain has been reported to increase to 32%–37% in lumbosacral fusion patients,.
| Diagnosis Of Sacroiliac Joint Pain|| |
History, physical examination, and imaging study
The initial pain usually starts below the dermatomal level of L5 (above L5 indicating lumbar spine origin) referring to the entire lower extremity while taking the history of the patient into account. On physical examination, provocation tests, for example, Patrick's test, Gaenslen's Test, SI joint shear test, and Yeoman's test are helpful. In particular, various studies have reported that three or more than three provocation tests might provide a more sensitive and specific identification of the stress from the SI joint. Imaging studies including radiography, computed tomography, single-photon emission computed tomography, bone scans, and other nuclear imaging techniques are able to give clues as to the presence of SI joint disorder, however, they are often inconclusive. Clinically, imaging studies would be applied only to survey for a “red-flag” situation to exclude fracture, infection, and malignancy. However, the diagnostic block provides a better and more reliable option for the diagnosis.
Intra-articular diagnostic block
Diagnostic SI joint blocks remain the only means of establishing a diagnosis of intra-articular SI joint pain. The positive response of intra-articular diagnostic injections is a complete or near complete relief of pain. Concerning the qualitative evidence, the diagnostic accuracy is at Level II for dual diagnostic blocks with at least 70% pain relief as the criterion standard and Level III for single diagnostic blocks with at least 75% pain relief as the criterion standard,. The single blocks cannot detect false-positive cases. For the dual blocks, the first block is injected with lidocaine, and the second block is injected with bupivacaine. Using the dual blocks for assessing the prevalence of SI joint pain, a variable prevalence of 10%–40.4% was noted with a false-positive rate of 12.5%–26%. However, this method remained primarily for study design. Clinically, either a diagnostic block with local anesthetic or a therapeutic block with local anesthetic and a steroid is usually applied. The recommended volume of injectate ranges from 1 to 2 mL.
The fluoroscopy-guided block is the gold standard for a diagnostic or therapeutic purpose in treating SI joint pain. The fluoroscopy-guided block has been reported to have a higher accuracy rate of diagnosis than an ultrasound-guided injection. A posterior approach to the SI joint has been widely accepted. A 22-gauge needle with a stylet is usually used in this approach. A quantity of 0.25 mL of contrast medium is usually adequate to confirm the proper needle position. The arthrograms needed for the procedure are anterior-posterior, lateral, ipsilateral oblique, and contra-lateral oblique views. Attention should be given when the flow goes outside of the joint, especially in cases of ventral capsular tears. Blocking pain from the SI joint is accomplished by injecting 1–2 mL of local anesthetic. If over 75% of the pain is reduced after a single diagnostic block, this test is considered positive. If around 50%–75% of the pain is reduced, the SI joint may be considered a major contributor to pain.
Extra-articular sources of pain
Pain originating from the SI joint and pain originating from other components of the SI complex almost always confuses clinicians. The intra-articular diagnostic blocks undervalue the prevalence of SI region pain from the peri-articular origins (such as ligaments and capsules). For diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, anesthetizing the innervations of the SI complex seems to resolve the bias better. Compared to an SI joint injection alone, the combined SI joint and S1-3 lateral branch injections have been reported to show significantly more improvement in the visual analog scale. Moreover, Dreyfuss etal. illustrated a multi-site, multi-depth technique to differentiate the origins of the pain. The results revealed that the sacral lateral branch block would be a robust way to select patients for radiofrequency (RF) neurotomy rather than the intra-articular block.
| Non-Interventional Treatment|| |
The prevalence of true leg discrepancy (5 mm or greater) in the general population has risen to 43.5% and significantly increases to 75% in patients with lower back pain. Individualized lifting shoes may be useful in patients with true leg discrepancy. On the other hand, functional leg length discrepancy may be addressed through the aid of physical therapy. Transversus abdominis muscle exercise may cause some reduction of SI joint pain. Chiropractic manipulation, certain exercises, and Kinesio tape are helpful for SI joint pain disorder and pelvic stability. With respect to medication, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and muscle relaxants may be effective, while there is only weak evidence for the effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants.
| Interventional Pain Management Options|| |
Evidence of interventional pain management for sacroiliac joint pain
Multiple options for interventional treatment of chronic SI pain are available. The different assessments and critical appraisal systems for clinical evidence provide a framework for the decision-making process. In 2010, Vanelderen etal. reported that an intra-articular therapeutic injection with corticosteroids and a local anesthetic has benefits which outweigh the risks, more so than other options with the highest evidence rating of 1B+. Later, another systemic review suggested that cooled RF neurotomy for the rami laterals seems to have better evidence of its effectiveness for both short-term and long-term pain controls. However, intra-articular steroid injection, peri-articular prolotherapy, pulsed RF, and conventional monopolar RF have limited or poor evidence of effectiveness in treating SI pain.
Intra-articular steroid injection
Corticosteroids offer anti-inflammatory mechanisms to reduce pain in various clinical conditions, such as in patients with tendinitis, tenosynovitis, arthritis, and other musculoskeletal problems. It has been reported that intra-articular steroid injections have intermediate-term benefits, in which more than half of the patients had positive responses to treatment in a 6-month follow-up. With a blind injection method, only 22% of the patients received successful intra-articular injections on computed tomographic scanning, indicating that the injectates did not extend into the joint spaces. Different cadaveric studies have revealed that the ultrasound guidance method presents a better rate of accuracy for intra-articular injection at a rate of 80%–88.2%,. Although the fluoroscopy and computed tomography-guided techniques could provide more precise needle placement during the procedure, ultrasound guidance is more readily available and feasible in clinical practice. The successful intra-articular injection rate using the ultrasound guidance technique has been reported to be 60% in the first 30 injections, and it gradually improved, reaching 93.5% in the last 30 injections. Regarding the recent studies, the ultrasound-guided injection method not only has a similar treatment effect as the fluoroscopically guided injection method but also facilitates the avoidance of critical vessel injury,.
The mechanism of RF denervation to alleviate pain sensation consists in applying an electrical current generated by radio waves to heat nerve fibers and thus reduce pain signals. In 2001, Ferrante etal. reported the first bipolar RF technique employed in treating SI joint disorder by creating a strip lesion of the posterior SI joint with RF needles inserted at <1-cm intervals. As a result, 36% of the patients experienced 50% pain relief for 6 months. Afterward, conventional unipolar (or monopolar) RF targeting the lateral branches of the primary dorsal rami was adopted in several studies,, which resulted in sustained relief for 6 months in over 60% of subjects. Currently, in addition to conventional unipolar RF, several modified techniques targeting the lateral branches of the primary dorsal rami have been proposed by different manufacturers, including cooled RF ablation, Simplicity III RF ablation, bipolar RF ablation, and the latest quadrapolar RF ablation. However, studies comparing the effects among those techniques are still lacking.
Relative to the etiology described above, SI joint pain can be generated from extra-articular elements including ligaments and capsules. Prolotherapy involves the injection of hyperosmolar dextrose or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into the area where repairing and strengthening are thought to be needed. The application of prolotherapy for SI joint pain consists of making an injection in the periarticular and intra-articular areas to treat pain and sacral ligament laxity. Some studies reported the positive clinical outcomes of prolotherapy for SI joint pain and even a superior effect and longer duration for relief of SI joint pain compared to the injection of a steroid into the joint,. In recent studies, a significant reduction in the pain scores of SI joint pain was observed in patients receiving intra-articular PRP injections compared to those receiving steroid injections,. Additional data and trials are needed to validate the application of prolotherapy.
Percutaneous sacroiliac joint fusion
The rationale for SI joint fusion is to relieve pain created by the movement of a joint through the removal of movement by arthrodesis of the joint space. Only few comparative studies of percutaneous SI joint fusion and denervation have been reported, and they had limited clinical evidence,. The safety and effectiveness of percutaneous fusion compared with denervation remained inconclusive. However, surgical fusion with a percutaneous SI screw placement might have a higher rate of complications than RF neurotomy.
| Conclusion|| |
The diagnosis and management of patients with SI joint pain remains challenging. There are no specific historic features, provocation tests or radiological findings to provide a definite diagnosis of SI join pain. A diagnostic SI joint block helps to establish a more accurate diagnosis of intra-articular SI joint pain. We therefore recommend a multimodal approach to treat patients with SI joint pain. Physical therapy and NSAIDs are the first-line choices. Intra-articular steroid injection, RF ablation, and prolotherapy can be considered as interventional pain management options for SI joint pain relief. In the event of a failure of those treatments, a percutaneous SI fusion may be considered.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Daniel Hayward for his editing of this manuscript.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Cohen SP, Chen Y, Neufeld NJ. Sacroiliac joint pain: A comprehensive review of epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Expert Rev Neurother 2013;13:99-116.
Cohen SP. Epidemics, evolution, and sacroiliac joint pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007;32:3-6.
Katz V, Schofferman J, Reynolds J. The sacroiliac joint: A potential cause of pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16:96-9.
DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR. Etiology of chronic low back pain in patients having undergone lumbar fusion. Pain Med 2011;12:732-9.
Unoki E, Abe E, Murai H, Kobayashi T, Abe T. Fusion of multiple segments can increase the incidence of sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41:999-1005.
Vora AJ, Doerr KD, Wolfer LR. Functional anatomy and pathophysiology of axial low back pain: Disc, posterior elements, sacroiliac joint, and associated pain generators. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N
Kampen WU, Tillmann B. Age-related changes in the articular cartilage of human sacroiliac joint. Anat Embryol (Berl) 1998;198:505-13.
Vleeming A, Schuenke MD, Masi AT, Carreiro JE, Danneels L, Willard FH. The sacroiliac joint: An overview of its anatomy, function and potential clinical implications. J Anat 2012;221:537-67.
Roberts SL, Burnham RS, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM, Loh EY. Cadaveric study of sacroiliac joint innervation: Implications for diagnostic blocks and radiofrequency ablation. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2014;39:456-64.
Fortin JD, Kissling RO, O'Connor BL, Vilensky JA. Sacroiliac joint innervation and pain. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 1999;28:687-90.
Patel N, Gross A, Brown L, Gekht G. A randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of lateral branch neurotomy for chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Pain Med 2012;13:383-98.
Cohen SP, Hurley RW, Buckenmaier CC 3rd
, Kurihara C, Morlando B, Dragovich A. Randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating lateral branch radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac joint pain. Anesthesiology 2008;109:279-88.
Vanelderen P, Szadek K, Cohen SP, De Witte J, Lataster A, Patijn J,et al.
13. Sacroiliac joint pain. Pain Pract 2010;10:470-8.
Simopoulos TT, Manchikanti L, Gupta S, Aydin SM, Kim CH, Solanki D,et al.
Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. Pain Physician 2015;18:E713-56.
Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. A modified approach to grading of evidence. Pain Physician 2014;17:E319-25.
Kennedy DJ, Engel A, Kreiner DS, Nampiaparampil D, Duszynski B, MacVicar J. Fluoroscopically guided diagnostic and therapeutic intra-articular sacroiliac joint injections: A systematic review. Pain Med 2015;16:1500-18.
Jee H, Lee JH, Park KD, Ahn J, Park Y. Ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided sacroiliac joint intra-articular injections in the noninflammatory sacroiliac joint dysfunction: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2014;95:330-7.
Borowsky CD, Fagen G. Sources of sacroiliac region pain: Insights gained from a study comparing standard intra-articular injection with a technique combining intra- and peri-articular injection. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:2048-56.
King W, Ahmed SU, Baisden J, Patel N, Kennedy DJ, Duszynski B,et al.
Diagnosis and treatment of posterior sacroiliac complex pain: A systematic review with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Pain Med 2015;16:257-65.
Dreyfuss P, Henning T, Malladi N, Goldstein B, Bogduk N. The ability of multi-site, multi-depth sacral lateral branch blocks to anesthetize the sacroiliac joint complex. Pain Med 2009;10:679-88.
Friberg O. Clinical symptoms and biomechanics of lumbar spine and hip joint in leg length inequality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983;8:643-51.
Al-Subahi M, Alayat M, Alshehri MA, Helal O, Alhasan H, Alalawi A,et al.
The effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: A systematic review. J Phys Ther Sci 2017;29:1689-94.
Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: A comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1440-53.
Hansen H, Manchikanti L, Simopoulos TT, Christo PJ, Gupta S, Smith HS,et al.
A systematic evaluation of the therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. Pain Physician 2012;15:E247-78.
Rosenberg JM, Quint TJ, de Rosayro AM. Computerized tomographic localization of clinically-guided sacroiliac joint injections. Clin J Pain 2000;16:18-21.
Perry JM, Colberg RE, Dault SL, Beason DP, Tresgallo RA 3rd
. A cadaveric study assessing the accuracy of ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injections. PM R 2016;8:1168-72.
Klauser A, De Zordo T, Feuchtner G, Sögner P, Schirmer M, Gruber J,et al.
Feasibility of ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection considering sonoanatomic landmarks at two different levels in cadavers and patients. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:1618-24.
Pekkafahli MZ, Kiralp MZ, Başekim CC, Silit E, Mutlu H, Oztürk E,et al.
Sacroiliac joint injections performed with sonographic guidance. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:553-9.
Cosman ER Jr., Dolensky JR, Hoffman RA. Factors that affect radiofrequency heat lesion size. Pain Med 2014;15:2020-36.
Ferrante FM, King LF, Roche EA, Kim PS, Aranda M, Delaney LR,et al.
Radiofrequency sacroiliac joint denervation for sacroiliac syndrome. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:137-42.
Kapural L, Nageeb F, Kapural M, Cata JP, Narouze S, Mekhail N. Cooled radiofrequency system for the treatment of chronic pain from sacroiliitis: The first case-series. Pain Pract 2008;8:348-54.
Gilligan CJ, Shih JC, Cai VL, Hirsch JA, Rodrigues C, Irani ZD. Novel single puncture approach for simplicity 3 sacral plexus radiofrequency ablation: Technical note. Pain Physician 2016;19:E643-8.
Cheng J, Chen SL, Zimmerman N, Dalton JE, LaSalle G, Rosenquist R. A new radiofrequency ablation procedure to treat sacroiliac joint pain. Pain Physician 2016;19:603-15.
Safakish R. Comparison of quadrapolar™ radiofrequency lesions produced by standard versus modified technique: An experimental model. J Pain Res 2017;10:1377-82.
Kim WM, Lee HG, Jeong CW, Kim CM, Yoon MH. A randomized controlled trial of intra-articular prolotherapy versus steroid injection for sacroiliac joint pain. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16:1285-90.
Cusi M, Saunders J, Hungerford B, Wisbey-Roth T, Lucas P, Wilson S. The use of prolotherapy in the sacroiliac joint. Br J Sports Med 2010;44:100-4.
Singla V, Batra YK, Bharti N, Goni VG, Marwaha N. Steroid vs. Platelet-rich plasma in ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection for chronic low back pain. Pain Pract 2017;17:782-91.
Ko GD, Mindra S, Lawson GE, Whitmore S, Arseneau L. Case series of ultrasound-guided platelet-rich plasma injections for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2017;30:363-70.
Schmidt GL, Bhandutia AK, Altman DT. Management of sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018;26:610-6.
Spiker WR, Lawrence BD, Raich AL, Skelly AC, Brodke DS. Surgical versus injection treatment for injection-confirmed chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Evid Based Spine Care J 2012;3:41-53.
Ashman B, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT. Chronic sacroiliac joint pain: Fusion versus denervation as treatment options. Evid Based Spine Care J 2010;1:35-44.
|This article has been cited by|
||Sacroiliac joint pain in adolescents: Diagnostic and treatment challenges
| ||Giovanni Cucchiaro, Christopher Francis, Kymberly Householder, Allison Fernandez |
| ||Paediatric and Neonatal Pain. 2022; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes of acute postpartum inflammatory sacroiliitis: a retrospective study
| ||Xiaoxu Lu, Jiajia Hu, Minhui Dai, Jian Wang, Jianqin Yan, Junjie Zhang, Chengliang Zhang |
| ||Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2022; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Efficacy of Radiofrequency as Therapy and Diagnostic Support in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
| ||Giacomo Farž, Alessandro de Sire, Cettina Fallea, Mariantonia Albano, Gianluca Grossi, Elisa Bettoni, Stefano Di Paolo, Francesco Agostini, Andrea Bernetti, Filomena Puntillo, Carlo Mariconda |
| ||Diagnostics. 2022; 12(3): 600 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Sacroiliac Joint and Pelvic Dysfunction Due to Symphysiolysis in Postpartum Women
| ||Brian Fiani, Manraj Sekhon, Thao Doan, Brianne Bowers, Claudia Covarrubias, Michaela Barthelmass, Frank De Stefano, Athanasios Kondilis |
| ||Cureus. 2021; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|