• Steven P Cohen, Mark C Bicket, Connie Kurihara, Scott R Griffith, Ian M Fowler, Michael B Jacobs, Richard Liu, Anderson White Mirinda M Department of Anesthesiology, and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Anesthesiology, Johns Ho, Aubrey J Verdun, Sunil B Hari, Rick L Fisher, Paul F Pasquina, and Yakov Vorobeychik.
• Department of Anesthesiology, and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Anesthesiology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: scohen40@jhmi.edu.
• Mayo Clin. Proc. 2019 Apr 1; 94 (4): 628-642.

ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence of intra- and extra-articular sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, which injection is more beneficial, and whether fluoroscopy improves outcomes.Patients And MethodsThis patient- and evaluator-blinded comparative effectiveness study randomized 125 participants with SIJ pain from April 30, 2014, through December 12, 2017, to receive fluoroscopically guided injections into the joint capsule (group 1) or "blind" injections to the point of maximum tenderness using sham radiographs (group 2). The primary outcome was average pain on a 0 to 10 scale 1 month after injection. A positive outcome was defined as at least a 2-point decrease in average pain score coupled with positive (>3) satisfaction on a Likert scale from 1 to 5.ResultsFor the primary outcome, no significant differences were observed between groups (mean ± SD change from baseline, -2.3±2.4 points in group 1 vs -1.7±2.3 points in group 2; 95% CI, -0.33 to 1.36 points for adjusted difference; P=.23), nor was there a difference in the proportions of positive blocks (61% vs 62%) or 1-month categorical outcome (48% vs 40% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; P=.33). At 3 months, the mean ± SD reductions in average pain (-1.8±2.1 vs -0.9 ± 2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.58 points for adjusted difference; P=.02) and worst pain (-2.2±2.5 vs -1.4±2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.66 points for adjusted difference; P=.049) were greater in group 1 than 2, with other outcome differences falling shy of statistical significance.ConclusionAlthough fluoroscopically guided injections provide greater intermediate-term benefit in some patients, these differences are modest and accompanied by large cost differences.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02096653.Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

27 keywords...

hide…