scholarly journals Self-Reported Female Orgasm Following Serial Sacroiliac Joint Injections

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R Storlie ◽  
Hamid Abbasi
2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1615.2-1616
Author(s):  
A. R. Cunha ◽  
C. Mazeda ◽  
R. Aguiar ◽  
A. Barcelos

Background:Sacroiliitis is the hallmark of axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA). ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axSpA, consider glucocorticoid injections directed to the local site of musculoskeletal inflammation as a treatment option for pain relief, besides treatment with oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) before starter biotechnological treatment. However, there are few studies to evaluate efficacy of this technique with a small number of patients and a short follow-up. Ultrasonography has been used as a valuable option to guide this technique.Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided injections of sacroiliac joints (SIJs) in patients with sacroiliitis using clinical and laboratory outcomes at baseline and at 4-6thweeks.Methods:This study involved patients with axSpA with acute sacroiliitis, ≥18 and ≤ 65 years old, with body mass index (BMI) < 30kg/m2attending the Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic, which had been poorly controlled (ASDAS>2.1) by conventional therapy (physiotherapy, NSAIDs at maximum tolerated dosing during ≥ 4 weeks). Sociodemographic, clinical (disease duration, BMI, BASDAI, BASFI, ASDAS) and laboratory (CRP) data was collected from the medical records at baseline and at 4-6thweeks.Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25. Continuous variables were described with mean/median ± standard deviation (SD).SIJs injection was performed, under ultrasound guidance, using standard procedures with 2mL of lidocaine 1% and 40mg of methylprednisolone, with a 22-gauge needle. The procedure was performed by the same operator. Written informed consents were obtained from all patients.Results:We performed eleven sacroiliac injection in eleven consecutive patients (one procedure per patient). Nine patients (81.8%) were female, mean age (±SD) of 40.6(±9.4) years, median disease duration(±SD) of 0.9(±6.2) years and median BMI(±SD) of 24.2(±3.3). Eight patients (72.7%) had Nr-axSpA. All patients were non-responders to NSAIDs.At 4-6thweeks there was a decreased in median (±SD) BASDAI (5.4±1.9 vs 4.1±1.9), BASFI (4.2±1.4 vs 3.5±2.3) and ASDAS (3.2±0.8 vs 2.2±0.6) indexes.Conclusion:As previous studies demonstrated, this technique seems to be safe and quite effective.Our goal is to increase the number of patients undergoing this technique and have a longer follow up to evaluate its efficacy. The study has several limitations: the mid- and long-term effects should be evaluated in the future based on the results of the short-term effects and the study was not conducted as a double-blinded, controlled study.References:[1]van der Heijde D, Burgos-Vargas R, Ramiro S.,et al. ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76:978–991[2]Maugars Y, Mathis C, Vilon P, Prost A. Corticosteroid injection of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy. Arthritis Rheum 1992; 35:564–8.[3]Pekkafahli MZ, Kiralp MZ, Basekim CC et al. Sacroiliac joint injections performed with sonographic guidance. J Ultrasound Med 2003;22:553–9[4]Klauser A, De Zordo T, Feuchtner G et al. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection considering sonoanatomic landmarks at two different levels in cadavers and patients. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:1618–1624.Disclosure of Interests:Ana Rita Cunha: None declared, Carolina Mazeda: None declared, Renata Aguiar: None declared, Anabela Barcelos Speakers bureau: Bene, Eli-Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 915-920 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamad Bydon ◽  
Mohamed Macki ◽  
Rafael De la Garza-Ramos ◽  
Mina Youssef ◽  
Ziya L. Gokaslan ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5;23 (9;5) ◽  
pp. 439-450
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. Study Design: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. Objectives: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. Methods The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. Results: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. Conclusions: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries Key words: Chronic spinal pain, low back pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis, interventional techniques, sacroiliac joint injections


2013 ◽  
Vol 4;16 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E379-E390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: The high prevalence of persistent low back pain and growing number of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities employed to manage chronic low back pain and the subsequent impact on society and the economy continue to hold sway over health care policy. Among the multiple causes responsible for chronic low back pain, the contributions of the sacroiliac joint have been a subject of debate albeit a paucity of research. At present, there are no definitive conservative, interventional or surgical management options for managing sacroiliac joint pain. It has been shown that the increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with an increase of 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. There has not been a systematic assessment of the utilization and growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections. Study Design: Analysis of the growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objectives: To evaluate the utilization and growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections. Methods: This assessment was performed utilizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master data from 2000 to 2011. Results: The findings of this assessment in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011 showed a 331% increase per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with an annual increase of 14.2%, compared to an increase in the Medicare population of 23% or annual increase of 1.9%. The number of procedures increased from 49,554 in 2000 to 252,654 in 2011, or a rate of 125 to 539 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Among the various specialists performing sacroiliac joint injections, physicians specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation have shown the most increase, followed by neurology with 1,568% and 698%, even though many physicians from both specialties have been enrolling in interventional pain management and pain management. Even though the numbers were small for nonphysician providers including certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, these numbers increased substantially at a rate of 4,526% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with 21 procedures performed in 2000 increasing to 4,953 procedures in 2011. The, majority of sacroiliac joint injections were performed in an office setting. The utilization of sacroiliac joint injections by state from 2008 to 2010 showed increases of more than 20% in New Hampshire, Alabama, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Maine. Similarly, some states showed significant decreases of 20% or more, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Maryland, Arkansas, New York, and Hawaii. Overall, there was a 1% increase per 100,000 Medicare population from 2008 to 2010. However, 2011 showed significant increases from 2010. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, the availability of an identifiable code for only sacroiliac joint injections, and the possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. . Conclusions: This study illustrates the explosive growth of sacroiliac joint injections even more than facet joint interventions. Furthermore, certain groups of providers showed substantial increases. Overall, increases from 2008 to 2010 were nominal with 1%, but some states showed over 20% increases whereas some others showed over 20% decreases. Key words: Chronic spinal pain, low back pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis, interventional techniques, interventional pain management, sacroiliac joint injections


2012 ◽  
Vol 6;15 (6;12) ◽  
pp. E969-E982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Reports from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continue to express significant concern with the overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and the exponential increase in costs for chronic pain management. Study Design: The study is an analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Objective: To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques in chronic pain management. Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2011. Results: Interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically from 2000 to 2011. Overall, the increase of interventional pain management (IPM) procedures from 2000 to 2011 went up 228%, with 177% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with a total increase of 386% and 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, followed by 168% and 127% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, 150% and 111% for other types of nerve blocks and finally, 28% and 8% increases for percutaneous disc procedures. The geometric average of annual increases was 9.7% overall with 13.7% for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks and 7.7% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. Conclusion: Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 177% in the utilization of IPM services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 9.7%. The study also showed an exponential increase in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks. Key words: Interventional techniques, interventional pain management, facet joint injections, epidural steroid injections, sacroiliac joint injections, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain


Author(s):  
Mira Herman ◽  
Amaresh Vydyanathan ◽  
Allan L. Brook

Sacroiliac (SI) joint disease is a common cause of low back pain. It is not easily diagnosed by physical examination, as the joint has limited mobility and referral patterns are not sufficiently delineated from other pathological conditions implicated in low back pain. The accuracy of provocative testing of the sacroiliac joint is controversial. Many physicians use injection of the SI joint with local anesthetic and/or steroid as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in treating SI joint–related pain. Historically, SI joint intra-articular injections have been performed without imaging guidance. Imaging-guided techniques, often using CT fluoroscopy, increase the precision of these procedures and help confirm needle placement while achieving better results and reduced complications rates. Sacroiliac joint injection is routinely performed on an outpatient basis. The patient is questioned regarding previous steroid use (oral, cutaneous, or injected) to avoid iatrogenic Cushing syndrome. Repeat injections can be administered depending on patient’s response.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document