Conventional or Bipolar SIJ RFA

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05409443

Recruitment Status : Recruiting

First Posted : June 8, 2022

Last Update Posted : December 6, 2022

See Contacts and Locations

View this study on Beta.ClinicalTrials.gov

Sponsor:

Collaborator:

Stratus Medical, INC

Information provided by (Responsible Party):

Aaron Conger, University of Utah

Study Description

Brief Summary:

Specific Aims The sacroiliac joint complex (SIJC) is a diathrodial, synovial joint and posterior ligamentous network that receives both anterior innervation from the lumbosacral plexus as well as posterior sensory innervation via the posterior sacral network (PSN). The PSN is comprised by the lateral branches S1-S3 posterior rami, with variable contributions from S4 lateral branch and the L5 dorsal ramus. Pain signals originating from the SIJC can be interrupted with image-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the PSN, thereby reducing pain and disability in carefully selected patients.

A prior systematic review estimated that 32-89% of patients achieve at least 50% pain relief for six months after some type of PSN ablation. Many experts suspect that heterogenous RFA techniques and technology are responsible for the variable success rates seen across published studies. Cadaveric work suggests that targeting the PSN with a large bipolar strip lesions would result in >95% PSN neural capture compared to a smaller lesion produced by a conventional, monopolar, periforaminal RFA technique which may capture as low as 2.5% of the PSN. Nimbus is a commonly used multi-tined RFA probe whose large bipolar lesion size make it an ideal option for complete PSN neural ablation. Both the Nimbus (N-SIJRFA) and conventional (C-SIJRFA) techniques and technologies are commonly used; however, there are no prospective RCT's comparing them, and the clinical significance remains unknown.

Problem: The are no randomized controlled trials comparing novel technologies like N-SIJRFA to C-SIJRFA.

Purpose: To compare pain and disability outcomes in patients with confirmed SIJC pain after randomization to either N-SIJRFA or C-SIJRFA.

Central Hypothesis: N-SIJRFA will be more effective in improving pain and function compared to patients treated with C-SIJRFA at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

Specific Aims:

1. Compare the proportion of participants who report ≥50% relief of pain by Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) after N-SIJRFA versus C-SIJRFA.

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Sacroiliac Joint Complex Low Back Pain	Procedure: Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation	Phase 4

Detailed Description:

Low back pain affects the majority of individuals at some time in their lives. The estimated point prevalence of low back pain in 2015 was 7.3%, indicating that 540 million may be affected at any given time (1). The etiology of low back pain may be multifactorial but commonly is often attributed to nociception arising sacroiliac joint complex (SIJC) in as many as 15-30% of patients (2). The SIJC is a diathrodial, synovial joint that receives both anterior innervation from the lumbosacral plexus as well as posterior sensory innervation via the posterior sacral network (PSN) (3). The PSN is comprised by the lateral branches S1-S3 posterior rami, with variable contributions from S4 lateral branch and the L5 dorsal ramus (3-6). These have been targeted for neurotomy most commonly with image-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (7), but also with percutaneous cryoneurolysis (8), chemical neurolysis (9), endoscopic-guided RFA (10), and MRI high frequency ultrasound treatment (MRI-HIFU) (11).

Prior systematic review has suggested that 32-89% of patients may achieve at least 50% pain relief for six months, while 11-44% of patients achieved 100% pain relief for the same period (12). Although elements of patient selection likely effect this estimate (13), studies have used a variety of different RFA techniques to target the PSN which also may impact success rates. Few studies have directly compared these techniques, but cadaveric work has suggested that targeting the PSN with bipolar strip lesions results in substantially higher rates of neural capture compared to periforaminal RFA performed with conventional monopolar electrodes (6). Further, the rate of complete neural capture with a periforaminal conventional monopolar RFA may be as low as 12.5%, which is perhaps one reason why some clinical studies have shown increased probability of success in groups treated with technologies known to create larger lesions (13,14). Similar effectiveness has been observed for periforaminal techniques with both conventional monopolar compared to larger cooled monopolar lesions (15), as well as between large continuous-lesion multi-electrode lesioning compared to periforaminal conventional monopolar technique (16). However, no study has directly compared a bipolar strip lesion using a "palisade" technique (N-SIJRFA) to a conventional monopolar periforaminal method, the latter of which is used commonly in many practice settings.

The primary purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of RFA of the PSN using a bipolar "palisade" technique to create a continuous strip lesion compared to conventional monopolar periforaminal technique in the treatment of patients with sacroiliac joint complex pain. Given the findings of recent cadaveric studies, the results of the proposed work may substantially impact the current treatment paradigm for PSN neurotomy.

Study Design

Layout table for study information

Study Type :	Interventional (Clinical Trial)
Estimated Enrollment :	116 participants
Allocation:	Randomized
Intervention Model:	Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description:	To compare pain and disability outcomes in patients with confirmed SIJC pain after randomization to either N-SIJRFA or C-SIJRFA.
Masking:	Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking Description:	Participants will be blinded to the group to which they are randomized. Given inherent approach differences between techniques, the physician performing the procedure cannot be blinded. However, staff responsible for outcome collection will remain blinded.
Primary Purpose:	Treatment
Official Title:	Conventional or Bipolar Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain? The COBRA-SIJ Study, a Double-blinded, Randomized, Comparative Trial.
Actual Study Start Date :	August 15, 2022
Estimated Primary Completion Date :	August 30, 2025
Estimated Study Completion Date :	June 30, 2026

Arms and Interventions

Arm	Intervention/treatment
Active Comparator: Nimbus Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation (N-SIJRFA) Electrodes are positioned along the lateral sacral crest lateral to the inflection points of the S1, S2, and S3 lateral foraminal walls along first to third transverse sacral tubercles maintaining a craniocaudal line with an interelectrode distance of no more than 15mm (3,6). The appropriate locations are confirmed in both AP and lateral views and the tines are deployed. Following injection of 1mL 2% lidocaine, lesions are performed at 85 degrees Celsius for 180 seconds at each site for bipolar sites and 80 degrees Celsius for 90 seconds for the monopolar site. Following ablation the tines are retracted for all electrodes prior to removal.	Procedure: Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation are performed using fluoroscopic guidance for accuracy of needle placement. Participant will be positioned by the physician and procedure staff on a fluoroscopic table. Blood pressure and pulse oximetry monitors will be placed. A pre-procedure time-out will be performed, as is protocol for all spinal injection procedures. No sedation or post-procedural corticosteroid will be used during these procedures, only local anesthetic (lidocaine). The skin and superficial tissues will be anesthetized at each site with 1-2 mL of 1% lidocaine. Prior to the ablation up to 2 mL of 2% lidocaine may be used at each site to ensure adequate pain control during the ablation. Once in position, a radiofrequency ablation lesion will be made using a 30 second ramp-up time to a maximum temperature of 80 °C, followed by an additional 90 seconds at maximum temperature.
Active Comparator: Conventional Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation (C-SIJRFA) To target the L5 dorsal ramus, an electrode will be placed in parallel between the junction of the sacral ala and S1 superior articular process. A periforaminal electrode position will be used to target the lateral branches from S1 to S3, as suggested by Roberts et al. and previously performed by Cohen et al. (6,18). An 22-G cannula with a 5-mm exposed tip was directed to a location approximately 3-5mm lateral to the PSFA of S1, S2, and S3. The "analog clock" positions for the probes at S1 and S2 levels will be 1:00, 3:00, and 5:30 on the right, and 6:30, 9:00, and 11:00 on the left. For the S3 level the positions at 1:30 and 4:30 on the right, and 7:30 and 10:30 on the left will be used (6,18). The appropriate locations are confirmed in both AP and lateral views. Following injection of 1mL 2% lidocaine, monopolar RFA is performed for 90 seconds at 80 degrees Celsius at each location.	Procedure: Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation are performed using fluoroscopic guidance for accuracy of needle placement. Participant will be positioned by the physician and procedure staff on a fluoroscopic table. Blood pressure and pulse oximetry monitors will be placed. A pre-procedure time-out will be performed, as is protocol for all spinal injection procedures. No sedation or post-procedural corticosteroid will be used during these procedures, only local anesthetic (lidocaine). The skin and superficial tissues will be anesthetized at each site with 1-2 mL of 1% lidocaine. Prior to the ablation up to 2 mL of 2% lidocaine may be used at each site to ensure adequate pain control during the ablation. Once in position, a radiofrequency ablation lesion will be made using a 30 second ramp-up time to a maximum temperature of 80 °C, followed by an additional 90 seconds at maximum temperature.

Arm

Intervention/treatment

Active Comparator: Nimbus Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation (N-SIJRFA)

Electrodes are positioned along the lateral sacral crest lateral to the inflection points of the S1, S2, and S3 lateral foraminal walls along first to third transverse sacral tubercles maintaining a craniocaudal line with an interelectrode distance of no more than 15mm (3,6).
The appropriate locations are confirmed in both AP and lateral views and the tines are deployed. Following injection of 1mL 2% lidocaine, lesions are performed at 85 degrees Celsius for 180 seconds at each site for bipolar sites and 80 degrees Celsius for 90 seconds for the monopolar site. Following ablation the tines are retracted for all electrodes prior to removal.

Procedure: Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation

Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation are performed using fluoroscopic guidance for accuracy of needle placement. Participant will be positioned by the physician and procedure staff on a fluoroscopic table. Blood pressure and pulse oximetry monitors will be placed. A pre-procedure time-out will be performed, as is protocol for all spinal injection procedures. No sedation or post-procedural corticosteroid will be used during these procedures, only local anesthetic (lidocaine). The skin and superficial tissues will be anesthetized at each site with 1-2 mL of 1% lidocaine. Prior to the ablation up to 2 mL of 2% lidocaine may be used at each site to ensure adequate pain control during the ablation. Once in position, a radiofrequency ablation lesion will be made using a 30 second ramp-up time to a maximum temperature of 80 °C, followed by an additional 90 seconds at maximum temperature.

Active Comparator: Conventional Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation (C-SIJRFA)

To target the L5 dorsal ramus, an electrode will be placed in parallel between the junction of the sacral ala and S1 superior articular process.

A periforaminal electrode position will be used to target the lateral branches from S1 to S3, as suggested by Roberts et al. and previously performed by Cohen et al. (6,18). An 22-G cannula with a 5-mm exposed tip was directed to a location approximately 3-5mm lateral to the PSFA of S1, S2, and S3. The "analog clock" positions for the probes at S1 and S2 levels will be 1:00, 3:00, and 5:30 on the right, and 6:30, 9:00, and 11:00 on the left. For the S3 level the positions at 1:30 and 4:30 on the right, and 7:30 and 10:30 on the left will be used (6,18).
The appropriate locations are confirmed in both AP and lateral views. Following injection of 1mL 2% lidocaine, monopolar RFA is performed for 90 seconds at 80 degrees Celsius at each location.

Procedure: Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

Change in Percent in NPRS Pain Score [ Time Frame: 3 month ]
The proportion of participants with ≥50% change in NPRS pain score at the 3-month follow-up assessment.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

Percent of Relief [ Time Frame: 6 month ]
The proportion of participants with ≥50%, relief of pain by NPRS
Percent of Relief [ Time Frame: 12 month ]
The proportion of participants with ≥50%, relief of pain by NPRS
Percent of Relief [ Time Frame: 18 month ]
The proportion of participants with ≥50%, relief of pain by NPRS
Percent of Relief [ Time Frame: 24 month ]
The proportion of participants with ≥50%, relief of pain by NPRS
ODI Reduction [ Time Frame: 3 month ]
The proportion of participants who report ≥15-point ODI reduction
ODI Reduction [ Time Frame: 6 month ]
The proportion of participants who report ≥15-point ODI reduction
ODI Reduction [ Time Frame: 12 month ]
The proportion of participants who report ≥15-point ODI reduction
ODI Reduction [ Time Frame: 18 month ]
The proportion of participants who report ≥15-point ODI reduction
ODI Reduction [ Time Frame: 24 month ]
The proportion of participants who report ≥15-point ODI reduction
EQ-5D Improvement [ Time Frame: 3 month ]
The proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in the categorical EuroQol 5 Dimensions tool (EQ-5D) (20) defined by ≥0.03 following treatments
EQ-5D Improvement [ Time Frame: 6 month ]
The proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in the categorical EuroQol 5 Dimensions tool (EQ-5D) (20) defined by ≥0.03 following treatments
EQ-5D Improvement [ Time Frame: 12 month ]
The proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in the categorical EuroQol 5 Dimensions tool (EQ-5D) (20) defined by ≥0.03 following treatments
EQ-5D Improvement [ Time Frame: 18 month ]
The proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in the categorical EuroQol 5 Dimensions tool (EQ-5D) (20) defined by ≥0.03 following treatments
EQ-5D Improvement [ Time Frame: 24 month ]
The proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement in the categorical EuroQol 5 Dimensions tool (EQ-5D) (20) defined by ≥0.03 following treatments
PGIC Improvement [ Time Frame: 3 month ]
The proportions of participants who report being "improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale
PGIC Improvement [ Time Frame: 6 month ]
The proportions of participants who report being "improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale
PGIC Improvement [ Time Frame: 12 month ]
The proportions of participants who report being "improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale
PGIC Improvement [ Time Frame: 18 month ]
The proportions of participants who report being "improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale
PGIC Improvement [ Time Frame: 24 month ]
The proportions of participants who report being "improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale

Eligibility Criteria

Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Layout table for eligibility information

Ages Eligible for Study:	18 Years to 90 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:	All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:	No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Adult participants aged 18-90 years old with at least 3 months of low back pain who have not responded to at least 3 months of conservative treatment.
7-day average NPRS for low back pain of at least 4/10 at baseline
Pain relieved by at least 50% by either a fluoroscopically-guided intraarticular sacroiliac joint injection including a local anesthetic and a fluoroscopically-guided PSN block or dual fluoroscopically-guided PSN blocks.
Participants capable of understanding and providing consent in English and capable of complying with the outcome instruments used.

A pain diary with appropriate diagnostic categories of relief (100% relief, 80-99% relief, etc.), will be provided. Duration of pain relief will not be used as it has been shown to only marginally improve diagnostic confidence (17).

Exclusion Criteria:

History of SIJ fusion.
Symptomatic hip osteoarthritis
Active lumbar radicular pain
Evidence of hardware loosening (in participants with history lumbar or lumbosacral fusion).
Presence of pacemaker or neurostimulator.
Chronic widespread pain or somatoform disorder (e.g., fibromyalgia).
More than 50 mg morphine-equivalent per day opioid use.
Active bacterial infection or treatment of infection with antibiotics within the past 4 weeks.
Medical conditions causing significant functional disability (e.g., stroke, COPD).
Addictive behavior, severe clinical depression, or psychotic features.
History of anaphylactic reaction to any medication used.
Those receiving remuneration for their pain treatment (e.g., disability, worker's compensation).
Those involved in active litigation relevant to their pain.
The participant is incarcerated.

Contacts and Locations

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT05409443

Contacts

Layout table for location contacts

Contact: PMR Research Group	801-587-5488	PMR.Research@hsc.utah.edu
Contact: Aaron Conger, DO	801-587-5488	aaron.conger@hsc.utah.edu

Locations

Layout table for location information

United States, Utah
University of Utah Farmington Health Center	Recruiting
Farmington, Utah, United States, 84025
Contact: PMR Research Group 801-587-5432 PMR.Research@hsc.utah.edu
Contact: Aaron Conger, DO 801-587-5488 aaron.conger@hsc.utah.edu
University of Utah Orthopaedic Center	Recruiting
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States, 84108
Contact: PMR Research Group 801-587-5432 PMR.Research@hsc.utah.edu
Contact: Aaron Conger, DO 801-587-5488 aaron.conger@hsc.utah.edu
University of Utah South Jordan Health Center	Recruiting
South Jordan, Utah, United States, 84009
Contact: PMR Research Group 801-587-5432 PMR.Research@hsc.utah.edu
Contact: Aaron Conger, DO 801-587-5488 aaron.conger@hsc.utah.edu

Sponsors and Collaborators

University of Utah

Stratus Medical, INC

More Information

Publications:

GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6. Erratum In: Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):e1.

Cohen SP, Chen Y, Neufeld NJ. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Expert Rev Neurother. 2013 Jan;13(1):99-116. doi: 10.1586/ern.12.148.

Roberts SL, Burnham RS, Ravichandiran K, Agur AM, Loh EY. Cadaveric study of sacroiliac joint innervation: implications for diagnostic blocks and radiofrequency ablation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;39(6):456-64. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000156.

SOLONEN KA. The sacroiliac joint in the light of anatomical, roentgenological and clinical studies. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1957;27:1-127. No abstract available.

Bradley KC. The anatomy of backache. Aust N Z J Surg. 1974 Jul;44(3):227-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1974.tb04409.x. No abstract available.

Roberts SL, Stout A, Loh EY, Swain N, Dreyfuss P, Agur AM. Anatomical Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation Techniques for Sacroiliac Joint Pain. Pain Med. 2018 Oct 1;19(10):1924-1943. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnx329.

Shih CL, Shen PC, Lu CC, Liu ZM, Tien YC, Huang PJ, Chou SH. A comparison of efficacy among different radiofrequency ablation techniques for the treatment of lumbar facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Aug;195:105854. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105854. Epub 2020 Apr 19.

Sahoo RK, Das G, Pathak L, Dutta D, Roy C, Bhatia A. Cryoneurolysis of Innervation to Sacroiliac Joints: Technical Description and Initial Results-A Case Series. A A Pract. 2021 Mar 30;15(4):e01427. doi: 10.1213/XAA.0000000000001427.

Nouer Frederico T, Ferraro LHC, Lemos JD, Sakata RK. Chemical neurolysis of the lateral branches of the sacral dorsal rami for the treatment of chronic pain in the sacroiliac joint: Case report and description of the technique. Pain Pract. 2022 Jan;22(1):134-136. doi: 10.1111/papr.13046. Epub 2021 Jun 25. No abstract available.

Ibrahim R, Telfeian AE, Gohlke K, Decker O. Endoscopic Radiofrequency Treatment of the Sacroiliac Joint Complex for Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study with a 2-Year Follow-Up. Pain Physician. 2019 Mar;22(2):E111-E118.

Najafi A, Sartoretti E, Binkert CA. Sacroiliac Joint Ablation Using MR-HIFU. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019 Sep;42(9):1363-1365. doi: 10.1007/s00270-019-02263-0. Epub 2019 Jun 11.

Bogduk N. Commentary on King W, Ahmed S, Baisden J, Patel N, MacVicar J, Kennedy DJ. Diagnosis of posterior sacroiliac complex pain: a systematic review with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Pain Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):222-4. doi: 10.1111/pme.12615. Epub 2014 Nov 5. No abstract available.

Cohen SP, Strassels SA, Kurihara C, Crooks MT, Erdek MA, Forsythe A, Marcuson M. Outcome predictors for sacroiliac joint (lateral branch) radiofrequency denervation. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 May-Jun;34(3):206-14. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181958f4b.

Tinnirello A, Barbieri S, Todeschini M, Marchesini M. Conventional (Simplicity III) and Cooled (SInergy) Radiofrequency for Sacroiliac Joint Denervation: One-Year Retrospective Study Comparing Two Devices. Pain Med. 2017 Sep 1;18(9):1731-1744. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnw333.

Cheng J, Pope JE, Dalton JE, Cheng O, Bensitel A. Comparative outcomes of cooled versus traditional radiofrequency ablation of the lateral branches for sacroiliac joint pain. Clin J Pain. 2013 Feb;29(2):132-7. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3182490a17.

Speldewinde GC. Successful Thermal Neurotomy of the Painful Sacroiliac Ligament/Joint Complex-A Comparison of Two Techniques. Pain Med. 2020 Mar 1;21(3):561-569. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz282.

Bogduk N. On the Rational Use of Diagnostic Blocks for Spinal Pain. Neurosurg Q. 2009 Jun;19(2):88-100.

Cohen SP, Hurley RW, Buckenmaier CC 3rd, Kurihara C, Morlando B, Dragovich A. Randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating lateral branch radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac joint pain. Anesthesiology. 2008 Aug;109(2):279-88. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31817f4c7c.

Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008 Nov-Dec;8(6):968-74. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006. Epub 2008 Jan 16.

Soer R, Reneman MF, Speijer BL, Coppes MH, Vroomen PC. Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2012 Nov;12(11):1035-9. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.030.

Ayearst L, Harsanyi Z, Michalko KJ. The Pain and Sleep Questionnaire three-item index (PSQ-3): a reliable and valid measure of the impact of pain on sleep in chronic nonmalignant pain of various etiologies. Pain Res Manag. 2012 Jul-Aug;17(4):281-90. doi: 10.1155/2012/635967.

Tonosu J, Oka H, Watanabe K, Abe H, Higashikawa A, Kawai T, Yamada K, Nakarai H, Tanaka S, Matsudaira K. Characteristics of the spinopelvic parameters of patients with sacroiliac joint pain. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 4;11(1):5189. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84737-1.

Tonosu J, Kurosawa D, Nishi T, Ito K, Morimoto D, Musha Y, Ozawa H, Murakami E. The association between sacroiliac joint-related pain following lumbar spine surgery and spinopelvic parameters: a prospective multicenter study. Eur Spine J. 2019 Jul;28(7):1603-1609. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-05952-z. Epub 2019 Mar 18.

Layout table for additonal information

Responsible Party:	Aaron Conger, Principle Investigator; Assistant Professor, University of Utah
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT05409443
Other Study ID Numbers:	IRB 150067
First Posted:	June 8, 2022 Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted:	December 6, 2022
Last Verified:	December 2022
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD:	No

Layout table for additional information

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:	No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:	No

Keywords provided by Aaron Conger, University of Utah:


Sacroiliac Joint

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Layout table for MeSH terms

Low Back Pain Back Pain Pain Neurologic Manifestations

To Top