Background and Aim: Chronic lower extremity edema has been associated with postural impairment, sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD), and abnormal gait. Lymphedema and lipedema are important chronic lower extremity causes. This study aimed to detect the presence of SIJD and postural disorders in patients with lower extremity edema and the relationship between them. Methods: This is a comparative, prospective cohort study. Fifty-three patients with lower extremity edema and 53 healthy subjects were included in the study. Pain provocation tests were used to determine SIJD. Postural analysis was conducted with PostureScreen® Mobile 11.2 (PostureCo, Inc., Trinity, FL) software. The life quality of participants was determined by the Lymphedema Quality of Life (LYMQOL) scale. The functional status of the patients was determined by the Oswestry Disability Index and Lower Extremity Functional Scale. Results: SIJD (18.9%) was more common in the edema group. There was a positive correlation between volume differences, percentages, and the development of SIJD. We found deviations in the head, shoulder, and hip angulations in the edema group. Q angle and lateral shoulder angulation were significantly higher in patients with SIJD in the edema group. In the edema group, LYMQOL-leg total score was higher in patients with SIJD. Conclusion: Chronic lower extremity edema was found to be associated with postural deviations and SIJD. Besides edema control, postural disorders and SIJD should also be considered in these patients.

In this chapter, we provide an overview of the most current techniques in the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of pain in the outpatient setting. We performed a targeted literature review by searching for the terms such as “chronic pain” and “pain management.” Relevant articles were cited, and findings were described in the chapter text. Additionally, we supplemented our review with images from the Spine and Pain Associates’ offices at St. Luke’s University Health Network (SLUHN) in Bethlehem, PA, as well as medical illustrations by our authors. We begin the review with a description of pain—its definition, components, complexity, and classifications and then provide a stepwise outline of the pharmacologic approach beyond nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before delving into newer interventional pain management procedures. Subsequently, this chapter is not comprehensive as it does not provide extensive discussion on older, more established procedures such as epidural steroid injections as well as practices falling out of favor such as discograms and neurolysis. Instead, we focus on newer subacute to chronic nonmalignant pain interventions. Finally, we attempt to highlight future directions of the growing field. Overall, we provide an overview of the management of chronic by providing insights into updates to chronic pain management.

Background Posterior and lateral techniques have been described as approaches to sacroiliac joint arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the stabilizing effects of a novel posterior stabilization implant and technique to a previously published lateral approach in a cadaveric multidirectional bending model. We hypothesized that both approaches would have an equivalent stabilizing effect in flexion-extension, and that the posterior approach would exhibit better performance in lateral bending and axial rotation. We further hypothesized that unilateral and bilateral posterior fixation would stabilize both the primary and secondary joints. Methods Ranges of Motion (RoMs) of six cadaveric sacroiliac joints were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 Nm applied moment in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions. Results Intact RoMs were equivalent between both samples. Unilateral posterior intra-articular fixation reduced the RoMs of both primary and secondary joints in all loading planes (flexion-extension RoM by 45%, lateral bending RoM by 47%, and axial RoM by 33%), and bilateral fixation maintained this stabilizing effect in both joints (flexion-extension at 48%, in lateral bending at 53%, and in axial rotation at 42%). Only bilateral lateral trans-articular fixation reduced mean RoM of both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints, and only under flexion-extension loads (60%). Conclusion During flexion-extension, the posterior approach is equivalent to the lateral approach; while producing superior stabilization during lateral bend, and axial rotation.

Dove Press is a member of the Open Access Initiative, specializing in peer reviewed Medical Journals. View articlesor submit your research for publishing

Resumen: El dolor sacroilíaco es responsable de 15% a 30% de los cuadros de dolor lumbar bajo. El diagnóstico de esta patología es un desafío para el médico, debido a su compleja anatomía, el amplio diagnóstico diferencial, y las diversas etiologías que pueden provocar dolor en la articulación sacroilíaca. Una anamnesis ordenada y dirigida, asociada a un examen físico preciso, ayuda a orientar el diagnóstico. Las pruebas sacroiliacas específicas deben realizarse en aquellos pacientes con sospecha de dolor sacroilíaco, y deben interpretarse en conjunto y no de manera aislada. La resonancia magnética sirve para descartar otras causas de dolor lumbar bajo o diagnosticar casos de sacroileítis inflamatoria. La infiltración de la articulación es el gold standard para el diagnóstico, y debe realizarse en pacientes con alta sospecha de dolor sacroilíaco, por la anamnesis, examen físico, y tres o más pruebas sacroilíacas específicas positivas.

Sacroiliac (SI) joint pathology has been an increasingly discussed pathology as a potential etiology for significant low back and lower extremity pain. While patient history and examination maneuvers can assist with identifying the SI joint as a potential cause of pain, an intra-articular SI joint injection is critical to properly diagnose the SI joint as a clinically relevant pain generator. In addition to the diagnostic information from the injection, SI joint intra-articular injections can be performed for therapeutic benefit as part of a multi-modal, conservative treatment approach for SI joint pathology. We discuss our technique for safe and effective SI joint intra-articular injections as a both diagnostic and therapeutic aid for SI joint pathology.

Authors assumed that the stability of iliac screw (IS) fixation could affect the development of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between IS loosening and PJK after long fusion surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD).

Background: Minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion is indicated for low back pain from the SI joint that is due to degenerative sacroiliitis and/or sacroiliac joint disruption. This technique is safe and effective in relieving pain uncontrolled by nonoperative management^1-4. There is some controversy, but there continues to be increasing evidence of effectiveness. Description: This procedure is performed, with the patient under general anesthesia and in the prone position, using fluoroscopy or 3-dimensional (3D) navigation such as cone-beam computed tomographic (CT) imaging. After navigation setup, a navigated probe is used to approximate the desired location of each implant and trajectory. These positions are marked on the skin, and the skin is incised. A 3 to 5-cm lateral incision is made. The gluteal fascia is bluntly dissected to the outer table of the ilium. A guide pin is passed across the SI joint and into the center of the sacrum lateral to the neural foramina, which is confirmed with imaging. This is then drilled and broached. Triangular titanium rods are placed. Typically, 3 implants are placed, 2 in S1 and 1 in S2. Multiplanar postplacement imaging of the pelvis is obtained. The wound is irrigated and closed in layers. Alternatives: Nonsurgical alternatives have been reported to include pharmacological therapies, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, therapeutic SI joint blocks⁵, and physical therapy, such as core stabilization, orthotics (SI belts), and radiofrequency ablation^1,2,6-8. The surgical alternative is an open anterior or posterior approach with SI joint arthrodesis. The anterior approach differs by the resection of the SI joint cartilage, the use of a plate or screws across the joint for stabilization, and the packing of bone graft to facilitate fusion⁹. These are more morbid and have a much longer recovery. Rationale: Conservative management for SI joint pain is inadequate for all patients. Having 3 of 5 positive physical examination maneuvers⁷, having confirmatory diagnostic block(s)¹⁰, and ruling out the hip or spine as the pain generator provide a success rate of >80%. These patients have early and sustained clinically important and significantly improved outcomes across varying measures compared with conservative treatment^1-4,11,12. Expected Outcomes: Patients can expect to experience decreased pain, reduced disability, increased daily function, and improved quality of life soon after the procedure is performed. These patients typically have an improvement of ≥50% in the Oswestry Disability Index score and a clinically significant decrease in visual analog pain scores¹³. The procedure appears durable through at least 5 years¹⁴. Complete pain relief is rare, but clinically important improvement is typical. Important Tips: Proper setup of the navigation system or fluoroscopy is needed to ensure accurate starting points. For 3D navigation, use a reference pin in the contralateral posterior superior iliac spine. Although navigation is used, radiographic images are made periodically to confirm proper placement of guide pins and implants. Images provide the greatest benefit when establishing navigation, after guide-pin placement when an outlet view allows for evaluation of pin depth, and after implant placement to confirm proper placement. Blood loss is generally low, but care should be taken to avoid vascular injury. Although rare, improper placement has led to injury of the superior gluteal artery¹⁵ and iliac artery¹⁶. This can be avoided by staying in bone. Proper placement of the implant is imperative in this procedure. There is the potential for nerve injury with improper placement of the implant: an L5 nerve injury if the implant is too ventral or an S1 or S2 nerve injury if the implant is too deep and into the foramen. Revision surgery is...

Хроническая неспецифическая боль в нижней части спины (ХНБС) представляет серьезную медицинскую и социальную проблему, являясь одной из основных причин инвалидизации и значительного снижения качества жизни людей в современной популяции. Разработка эффективных методов лечения ХНБС требует совместных усилий представителей разных медицинских специальностей: терапевтов, ревматологов, неврологов, нейрохирургов и реабилитологов. Одной из частых причин развития ХНБС следует считать остеоартрит фасеточных и крестцово-подвздошных суставов. Авторы рассматривают вопросы патогенеза и клинических проявлений, проблемы диагностики, а также различные подходы к лечению данной патологии. На основании собственного опыта и анализа данных литературы определены ряд положений, которые в дальнейшем могут использоваться для формирования рекомендаций по лечению и реабилитации больных с ХНБС.

Pain is often the initial complaint for which patients seek medical care, presenting both a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge to the primary care provider. The appreciation of pain is not merely the result of abnormal sensory stimulation causing an unpleasant sensation but rather a combination of the recognition of the somatic discomfort in association with an emotional response to that discomfort. The perception of pain and the extent of distress and disability can vary depending on previous experience, cultural background, situational factors, and comorbid psychiatric disease. Though acute pain is usually the result of tissue damage, this is not always the case, as evidenced by primary headache disorders. Chronic pain may be the result of an injury, irreversible underlying disease, or clinical conditions such as fibromyalgia for which the mechanism remains unclear. Treatment of the underlying cause will usually effect a resolution or improvement in the pain, but when the discomfort persists, a consultation with a neurologist or pain management specialist should be considered.

Background Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction/pain are considered frequent contributors to low back pain (LBP). Like other persistent pain conditions, PGP is increasingly recognized as a multifactorial problem involving biological, psychological and social factors. Perspectives differ between experts and a diversity of treatments (with variable degrees of evidence) have been utilized. Objective To develop a collaborative model of PGP that represents the collective view of a group of experts. Specific goals were to analyze structure and composition of conceptual models contributed by individual models, to aggregate them into a metamodel, to analyze the metamodel's composition, and to consider predicted efficacy of treatments. Design To develop a collaborative model of PGP, models were generated by invited individuals to represent their understanding of PGP using fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM). FCMs involved proposal of components related to causes, outcomes and treatments for pain, disability and quality of life and their connections. Components were classified into thematic categories. Weighting of connections was summed for components to judge their relative importance. FCMs were aggregated into a metamodel for analysis of the collective opinion it represented and to evaluate expected efficacy of treatments. Results From 21 potential contributors, 14 (67%) agreed to participate (representing 6 disciplines and 7 countries). Participants’ models included a mean(SD) of 22(5) components each. FCMs were refined to combine similar terms, leaving 89 components in ten categories. Biomechanical factors were the most important in individual FCMs. The collective opinion from the metamodel predicted greatest efficacy for injection, exercise therapy and surgery for pain relief. Conclusions The collaborative model of PGP showed a bias toward biomechanical factors. Most efficacious treatments predicted by the model have modest to no evidence from clinical trials, suggesting a mismatch between opinion and evidence. The model enables integration and communication of the collection of opinions on PGP.