保守治疗与微创外科治疗骶髂关节疼痛的随机对照试验 1 年结果。

1-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Conservative Management vs. Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for Sacroiliac Joint Pain.

机构信息

Charité - Universitaetsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.

Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Hospital, Belgium.

出版信息

Pain Physician. 2017 Sep;20(6):537-550.

DOI:
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) emanating from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common finding. Devices to fuse the SIJ are now commercially available, but high-quality evidence supporting their effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and effectiveness of conservative management (CM) to minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) in patients with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

One hundred three adults in spine clinics with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to CM (n = 51) or SIJF using triangular titanium implants (n = 52). CM consisted of optimization of medical therapy, individualized physiotherapy, and adequate information and reassurance as part of a multifactorial treatment. The primary outcome was the difference in change in self-rated LBP at 6 months using a 0 - 100 visual analog scale (VAS). Other effectiveness and safety endpoints, including leg pain, disability using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), quality of life using EQ-5D, and SIJ function using active straight leg raise test (ASLR), were assessed up to 12 months.

RESULTS

At 12 months, mean LBP improved by 41.6 VAS points in the SIJF group vs. 14.0 points in the CM group (treatment difference of 27.6 points, P < 0.0001). Mean ODI improved by 25.0 points in the SIJF group vs. 8.7 points in the CM group (P < 0.0001). Mean improvements in leg pain and EQ-5D scores were large after SIJF and superior to those after CM. CM patients were allowed to crossover to SIJF after 6 months. Patients who crossed to surgical treatment had no pre-crossover improvement in pain and ODI scores; after crossover, improvements were as large as those originally assigned to SIJF. One case of postoperative nerve impingement occurred in the surgical group. Two SIJF patients had recurrent pain attributed to possible device loosening and one had postoperative hematoma. In the CM group, one crossover surgery patient had recurrent pain requiring a revision surgery.

LIMITATIONS

The primary limitation was lack of blinding and the subjective nature of self-assessed outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ, minimally invasive SIJF with triangular titanium implants was safe and more effective than CM in relieving pain, reducing disability, and improving patient function and quality of life. Our findings will help to inform decisions regarding its use as a treatment option in this patient population.Key words: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, pelvic girdle pain, randomized controlled trial, quality of life, spine implants.

摘要

背景

骶髂关节(SIJ)源性下腰痛(LBP)较为常见。目前已有用于融合 SIJ 的设备,但支持其有效性的高质量证据有限。

目的

比较保守治疗(CM)与微创性 SIJ 融合(SIJF)治疗源自 SIJ 的慢性 LBP 患者的安全性和有效性。

研究设计

前瞻性、多中心随机对照试验。

设置

103 例在脊柱诊所就诊的慢性 LBP 源自 SIJ 的成年人。

方法

患者被随机分配至 CM(n = 51)或使用三角形钛植入物的 SIJF(n = 52)。CM 包括优化药物治疗、个体化物理治疗以及作为多因素治疗的一部分提供充分的信息和保证。主要结局是使用 0-100 视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估 6 个月时自我报告的 LBP 变化的差异。其他有效性和安全性终点包括腿痛、Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)、使用 EQ-5D 的生活质量和使用主动直腿抬高试验(ASLR)的 SIJ 功能,直至 12 个月。

结果

12 个月时,SIJF 组的 LBP 平均改善 41.6 VAS 点,而 CM 组仅改善 14.0 点(治疗差异 27.6 点,P < 0.0001)。SIJF 组的 ODI 平均改善 25.0 点,而 CM 组仅改善 8.7 点(P < 0.0001)。SIJF 后腿痛和 EQ-5D 评分的改善幅度较大,优于 CM 后。CM 患者在 6 个月后可交叉至手术治疗。交叉至手术治疗的患者在疼痛和 ODI 评分方面没有预交叉改善;交叉后,改善幅度与最初分配至 SIJF 的患者相当。手术组发生 1 例术后神经受压。2 例 SIJF 患者出现与可能的器械松动相关的复发性疼痛,1 例患者术后出现血肿。CM 组中,1 例交叉手术患者出现复发性疼痛,需行修正手术。

局限性

主要局限性是缺乏盲法和自我评估结果的主观性。

结论

对于源自 SIJ 的慢性 LBP 患者,使用三角形钛植入物的微创性 SIJF 是安全的,在缓解疼痛、减轻残疾以及改善患者功能和生活质量方面优于 CM。我们的研究结果将有助于为该患者人群中使用该方法作为治疗选择提供依据。

关键词

骶髂关节功能障碍;骨盆带疼痛;随机对照试验;生活质量;脊柱植入物。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索