Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:235
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 94-100

Comparative analysis of fluoroscopic-guided and ultrasound-guided sacroiliac joint injection in patient with clinical sacroiliitis

1 Department of Anaesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Guru Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Anaesthesiology, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bommasandra Industrial Estate, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Chetna Shamshery
M-139, Aashiana Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow - 226 012. Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_27_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: The complex anatomy of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) mandates an imaging modality to perform the diagnostic or therapeutic joint injection. Methods: Thirty-eight patients with sacroiliitis were randomly allocated into two groups, and were given SIJ injection using either fluroscopy (FL) or ultrasound (USG) as a guide to intervene. The assessment of pain by numerical rating scale (NRS), psychological and quality of life assessment by Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively, learning curve evaluation by the number of attempts, time taken and subjective ease of performing the procedure were evaluated. Results: Decreased numerical rating score (NRS) of pain from preprocedure mean value of 7.39 ± 0.20–0.94 ± 0.15 in the FL grp and 7.22 ± 0.21 to 2.78 ± 0.32 in the USG group at 4 weeks was significant and comparable (P < 0.001). The improvement in DASS from 40.78 ± 1.96–22.78 ± 0.49 (P < 0.001) in FL grp and 41.33 ± 1.62–25.22 ± 0.73 (P < 0.001) in USG group were significant and comparable after 12 weeks' follow-up. ODI decreased from 45.44 ± 0.99–20.78 ± 0.84 (P < 0.001) and 46.33 ± 0.98–24.11 ± 0.95 (P < 0.001) in FL and USG grp after 12 weeks. Fluoroscopic procedure took 1–3 attempts compared to 2–4 for USG. The average time taken to perform fluoroscopic intervention was 6.89 ± 0.23 min as compared to 9.32 ± 0.87 min by USG. Conclusion: USG and FL both are effective tools to intervene the SIJ but USG requires greater skill.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded74    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal