BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint is one of the sources of chronic lower back pain. Intra-articular injections of anesthetic drugs and/or steroids are currently used in these cases for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, given the anatomic and functional complexity of the joint, imaging guidance is mandatory during such procedures. In this context, the technique of fusing images obtained with two different modalities can often overcome the limitations and enhance the advantages of single-modality guidance. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the technique of ultrasound (US)-magnetic resonance (MR) image fusion to guide intra-articular injections of drugs into the sacroiliac joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated seven sacroiliac joints in six patients with sacroiliac pain syndrome (four females, two males; mean age 59 years; range 46-76 years). Five were candidates for radiofrequency thermolysis, and a therapeutic nerve block was performed in the sixth. Using the volume navigation system, we fused three-dimensional MR images with simultaneously acquired real-time ultrasound images and used them to guide the intra-articular injections. RESULTS: In all patients, spatial accuracy was considered excellent, with definition of registration errors of less than 3 mm. The diagnostic blocks produced positive results in all patients with 80 % reductions in pain (measured with a Numerical Rating Scale, NRS) relative to baseline. The patient who underwent the therapeutic nerve block experienced complete resolution of symptoms that has been maintained over time. There were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: US-MR imaging fusion guidance of sacroiliac joint injections is feasible and effective, in accordance with the data in the literature. The use of the MR for three-dimensional imaging eliminates the risk of radiation exposure.
BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint is one of the sources of chronic lower back pain. Intra-articular injections of anesthetic drugs and/or steroids are currently used in these cases for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, given the anatomic and functional complexity of the joint, imaging guidance is mandatory during such procedures. In this context, the technique of fusing images obtained with two different modalities can often overcome the limitations and enhance the advantages of single-modality guidance. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the technique of ultrasound (US)-magnetic resonance (MR) image fusion to guide intra-articular injections of drugs into the sacroiliac joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated seven sacroiliac joints in six patients with sacroiliac pain syndrome (four females, two males; mean age 59 years; range 46-76 years). Five were candidates for radiofrequency thermolysis, and a therapeutic nerve block was performed in the sixth. Using the volume navigation system, we fused three-dimensional MR images with simultaneously acquired real-time ultrasound images and used them to guide the intra-articular injections. RESULTS: In all patients, spatial accuracy was considered excellent, with definition of registration errors of less than 3 mm. The diagnostic blocks produced positive results in all patients with 80 % reductions in pain (measured with a Numerical Rating Scale, NRS) relative to baseline. The patient who underwent the therapeutic nerve block experienced complete resolution of symptoms that has been maintained over time. There were no complications. CONCLUSIONS: US-MR imaging fusion guidance of sacroiliac joint injections is feasible and effective, in accordance with the data in the literature. The use of the MR for three-dimensional imaging eliminates the risk of radiation exposure.
Authors: Hans C Hansen; Anne Marie McKenzie-Brown; Steven P Cohen; John R Swicegood; James D Colson; Laxmaiah Manchikanti Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Klaus Galiano; Alois Albert Obwegeser; Reto Bale; Christoph Harlander; Reinhold Schatzer; Michael Schocke; Hannes Gruber Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Andrea S Klauser; Tobias De Zordo; Gudrun M Feuchtner; Gabriel Djedovic; Rosa Bellmann Weiler; Ralph Faschingbauer; Michael Schirmer; Bernhard Moriggl Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Bollow; J Braun; M Taupitz; J Häberle; B H Reibhauer; S Paris; S Mutze; F Seyrekbasan; K J Wolf; B Hamm Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1996 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Mark V Boswell; Vijay Singh; Ramsin M Benyamin; Bert Fellows; Salahadin Abdi; Ricardo M Buenaventura; Ann Conn; Sukdeb Datta; Richard Derby; Frank J E Falco; Stephanie Erhart; Sudhir Diwan; Salim M Hayek; Standiford Helm; Allan T Parr; David M Schultz; Howard S Smith; Lee R Wolfer; Joshua A Hirsch Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Andrea Klauser; Tobias De Zordo; Gudrun Feuchtner; Peter Sögner; Michael Schirmer; Johann Gruber; Norbert Sepp; Bernhard Moriggl Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-11-15
Authors: Jan Fritz; Jörg C Henes; Christoph Thomas; Stephan Clasen; Michael Fenchel; Claus D Claussen; Jonathan S Lewin; Philippe L Pereira Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christian E Althoff; Matthias Bollow; Eugen Feist; Stephan R Marticorena-Garcia; Iris Eshed; Torsten Diekhoff; Bernd Hamm; Kay Geert A Hermann Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Christopher P Favazza; Krzysztof R Gorny; Matthew R Callstrom; Anil N Kurup; Michael Washburn; Pamela S Trester; Charles L Fowler; Nicholas J Hangiandreou Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Philipp Bosch; Francesco Carubbi; Carlo Alberto Scirè; Xenofon Baraliakos; Louise Falzon; Christian Dejaco; Pedro M Machado Journal: RMD Open Date: 2021-11