Surgical versus injection treatment for injection-confirmed chronic sacroiliac joint pain.

William Ryan Spiker, Brandon D Lawrence, Annie L Raich, Andrea C Skelly, Darrel S Brodke
{"title":"Surgical versus injection treatment for injection-confirmed chronic sacroiliac joint pain.","authors":"William Ryan Spiker,&nbsp;Brandon D Lawrence,&nbsp;Annie L Raich,&nbsp;Andrea C Skelly,&nbsp;Darrel S Brodke","doi":"10.1055/s-0032-1328142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong> Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Study rationale: </strong> Chronic sacroiliac joint pain (CSJP) is a common clinical entity with highly controversial treatment options. A recent systematic review compared surgery with denervation, but the current systematic review compares outcomes of surgical intervention with therapeutic injection for the treatment of CSJP and serves as the next step for evaluating current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of treatments for non-traumatic sacroiliac joint pain. Objective or clinical question:  In adult patients with injection-confirmed CSJP, does surgical treatment lead to better outcomes and fewer complications than injection therapy?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating surgery or injection treatment for injection-confirmed CSJP. Studies involving traumatic onset or non-injection-confirmed CSJP 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> We identified twelve articles (seven surgical and five injection treatment) meeting our inclusion criteria. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 40% improvement in pain as measured by Visual Analog Scale or Numeric rating Scale score. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 20% improvement in functionality. Most complications were reported in the surgical studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Surgical fusion and therapeutic injections can likely provide pain relief, improve quality of life, and improve work status. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions cannot be evaluated with the current literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"3 4","pages":"41-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0032-1328142","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1328142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

Study design:  Systematic review.

Study rationale:  Chronic sacroiliac joint pain (CSJP) is a common clinical entity with highly controversial treatment options. A recent systematic review compared surgery with denervation, but the current systematic review compares outcomes of surgical intervention with therapeutic injection for the treatment of CSJP and serves as the next step for evaluating current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of treatments for non-traumatic sacroiliac joint pain. Objective or clinical question:  In adult patients with injection-confirmed CSJP, does surgical treatment lead to better outcomes and fewer complications than injection therapy?

Methods:  A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating surgery or injection treatment for injection-confirmed CSJP. Studies involving traumatic onset or non-injection-confirmed CSJP 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 twelve articles (seven surgical and five injection treatment) meeting our inclusion criteria. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 40% improvement in pain as measured by Visual Analog Scale or Numeric rating Scale score. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 20% improvement in functionality. Most complications were reported in the surgical studies.

Conclusion:  Surgical fusion and therapeutic injections can likely provide pain relief, improve quality of life, and improve work status. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions cannot be evaluated with the current literature.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

注射证实的慢性骶髂关节疼痛的手术与注射治疗。
研究设计:系统评价。研究理由:慢性骶髂关节痛(CSJP)是一种常见的临床疾病,治疗方案存在高度争议。最近的一项系统综述比较了手术与去神经控制,但目前的系统综述比较了手术干预与治疗性注射治疗CSJP的结果,并作为评估非创伤性骶髂关节疼痛治疗比较有效性的现有证据的下一步。目的或临床问题:在注射确诊的成人CSJP患者中,手术治疗是否比注射治疗有更好的结果和更少的并发症?方法:对1970年至2012年6月间发表的英语文献进行系统综述。检索电子数据库和关键文献的参考文献列表,以确定评估手术或注射治疗注射确诊CSJP的研究。涉及创伤性发病或非注射证实的CSJP的研究被排除在外。两名独立审稿人使用推荐评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)系统评估证据质量水平,分歧通过协商一致解决。结果:我们确定了12篇文章(7篇手术治疗,5篇注射治疗)符合我们的纳入标准。无论治疗类型如何,大多数研究报告通过视觉模拟量表或数字评定量表得分测量的疼痛改善超过40%。无论采用何种治疗方式,大多数研究都报告了20%以上的功能改善。手术研究报告了大多数并发症。结论:手术融合和治疗性注射可以缓解疼痛,改善生活质量,改善工作状态。目前的文献无法评估这些干预措施的相对有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信