Computed tomography versus fluoroscopic guided-sacroiliac joint injection: a prospective comparative study

Background There are limited data discussing long-term pain relief and comparability of different image-guided sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injection. This study compared CT and fluoroscopic-guided SIJ injections regarding statistically and clinically significant differences in numeric pain reduction, rad...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Insights into imaging 2021-03, Vol.12 (1), p.38-8, Article 38
Main Authors: Bessar, Ahmed A. A., Arnaout, Mohamed M., Basha, Mohammad Abd Alkhalik, Shaker, Shady E., Elsayed, Ashraf E., Bessar, Manar Awad
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Comparative studies
Computed tomography
Diagnostic Radiology
Fluoroscopy
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neuroradiology
Original
Original Article
Pain
Pain management
Radiation dosage
Radiology
Sacroiliac joint pain
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background There are limited data discussing long-term pain relief and comparability of different image-guided sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injection. This study compared CT and fluoroscopic-guided SIJ injections regarding statistically and clinically significant differences in numeric pain reduction, radiation doses, and patient’s satisfaction. Methods A prospective study conducted on 52 patients who met specific inclusion criteria of SIJ pain. A mixture of 1 ml of 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate diluted in 2 ml of lidocaine 2% was injected under either CT or fluoroscopic guidance. Numeric rating score (NRS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed and recorded for each patient before procedure and one-week, and one-, three-, six-, and 12-months after procedure. The results were compared between both groups. Results Analysis of NRS one-month post-procedure showed a significant decrease from baseline in both groups: 12.5% in CT group ( p  = 0.002) and 9.5% in fluoroscopic group ( p  = 0.006). No significant difference in NRS between two groups at one- and three-months post-procedure ( p  = 0.11 and 0.1, respectively). There was a significant difference in NRS between two groups at six- and 12-months post-procedure ( p  = 0.001 and
ISSN:1869-4101
1869-4101
DOI:10.1186/s13244-021-00982-y