Fluoroscopic vs Ultrasound Guided Sacroiliac (SI) Joint Injection

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The investigators aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intra-articular sacroiliac joint injection under fluoroscopy versus ultrasound guidance

Official Title
-----------------
Fluoroscopic vs Ultrasound Guided Sacroiliac (SI) Joint Injection

Conditions
-----------------
Pain, Chronic

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: Ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection
* Procedure: Flouroscopy-guided sacroiliac joint injection


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Low back and/or gluteal pain without radicular extension for more than 3 months Tenderness over the SI joint Pain score > 3 by Visual Analogue Scale Exclusion Criteria: Malignancy Generalized or local infection Coagulopathy Allergy to drugs to be injected

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Fluoroscopic-guided sacroiliac joint injection<br> | Procedure: Flouroscopy-guided sacroiliac joint injection<br>* Using anterior posterior and contralateral oblique view the posterior joint line and inferior joint margin were identified and a needle was advanced at the point the posterior inferior joint line was most clearly seen.<br>|
| Active Comparator: Ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection<br> | Procedure: Ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection<br>* Using ultrasound the sacral hiatus in transverse position was identified. Then, sliding laterally and cephalad in transverse position, the posterior superior iliac spine and the posterior sacroiliac joint were identified. The needle was advanced toward the posterior joint space from medial to lateral, using an in-plane technique.<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reduction in pain | Pain assessment will be performed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (0 = no pain, 10 = the most severe pain felt). | Change from baseline pain score at 3 months | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) | Mean Change from Baseline in functional disability scores based on Oswestry Disability Index. 0% to 20% indicate minimal disability, 21% to 40% indicate moderate disability, 41%-60% indicates severe disability, 61%-80% means crippled and 81%-100% indicates that the patient is either bed-bound or exaggerating his/her symptoms. | Baseline to 3 months post-procedure | 
| Patient satisfaction Questionnaire | Satisfaction was measured on a 1 to 5 scale,Using score: 5-Excellent, 4-Very Good, 3-Good, 2-Fair, and 1-Poor | baseline to 3 months post-procedure | 
| Quantitative analgesic questionnaire | A tool designed to record patient-reported pain medication use, create scores to quantify and compare it and track changes in analgesic drug use over time. A higher score indicates higher pain medication use | at 3 months post-procedure | 
| Procedure time | Procedure time was measured using a stopwatch. It was defined as the time from the start of the procedure, the initial image was obtained or first probe placement, until the end of the procedure defined as;transforaminal needle placement was seen clearly. | Intraoperative |