Fluoroscopically Guided vs Landmark-Guided Sacroiliac Joint Injections: A Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of intra- and extra-articular sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, which injection is more beneficial, and whether fluoroscopy improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: For 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. CONCLUSION: Although fluoroscopically guided injections provide greater intermediate-term benefit in some patients, these differences are modest and accompanied by large cost differences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02096653.

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation: The Facet Treatment Study (FACTS), a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors' objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes. METHODS: A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation. RESULTS: Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.

Randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study comparing pulsed radiofrequency to steroid injections for occipital neuralgia or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness.

Occipital neuralgia (ON) is characterized by lancinating pain and tenderness overlying the occipital nerves. Both steroid injections and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) are used to treat ON, but few clinical trials have evaluated efficacy, and no study has compared treatments. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study in 81 participants with ON or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness whose aim was to determine which treatment is superior. Forty-two participants were randomized to receive local anesthetic and saline, and three 120 second cycles of PRF per targeted nerve, and 39 were randomized to receive local anesthetic mixed with deposteroid and 3 rounds of sham PRF. Patients, treating physicians, and evaluators were blinded to interventions. The PRF group experienced a greater reduction in the primary outcome measure, average occipital pain at 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.743 ± 2.487 vs -1.377 ± 1.970; P < 0.001), than the steroid group, which persisted through the 6-month follow-up. Comparable benefits favoring PRF were obtained for worst occipital pain through 3 months (mean change from baseline -1.925 ± 3.204 vs -0.541 ± 2.644; P = 0.043), and average overall headache pain through 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.738 ± 2.753 vs -1.120 ± 2.1; P = 0.037). Adverse events were similar between groups, and few significant differences were noted for nonpain outcomes. We conclude that although PRF can provide greater pain relief for ON and migraine with occipital nerve tenderness than steroid injections, the superior analgesia may not be accompanied by comparable improvement on other outcome measures.