TY  - BOOK
AU  - Karim Alaa Eldin Wagdi Tawfik
AU  - Ahmed Zaghloul Fouad , 
AU  - Amany Ezzat Ayad , 
AU  - Mohamed Ahmed Mansour , 
TI  - The success rate of ultrasound guided sacroiliac joint steroid injections in sacroiliitis. are we getting better? / 
PY  - 2020///
CY  - Cairo : 
PB  - Karim Alaa Eldin Wagdi Tawfik , 
KW  - Sacroiliac joint (SIJ)
KW  - Steroid
KW  - Ultrasound guided sacroiliac
N1  - Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Anaesthesia; Issued also as CD
N2  - Background: Sacroiliitis is one of the most common causes of low back pain. Initial treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is conservative. Interventional procedures, as image-guided intraarticular (IA) SIJ steroid injections may be performed in patients who do not respond to conservative measures. Due to the complexity of SIJ, it is difficult to place the needle accurately in the IA space without image guidance.Ultrasonography has many advantages. It has no radiation exposure; procedures can be done outside the operating room which will decrease the operating costs. In this study, we re-estimated the success rate of intraarticular Ultrasound (US) guided SIJ injection and measured differences in clinical outcomes between IA and periarticular (PA) SIJ injection. Methods: 34 patients were enrolled in the study. 29 patients had unilateral sacroiliitis, 5 patients had bilateral sacroiliitis and accordingly, 39 SIJ were injected. US guided injections were performed and thenan anteroposterior fluoroscopy image was obtained for the injected joint to detect whether it was pre-dominantly IA or PA. Secondary outcomes included NRS scores at 10 minutes, 1 week,and 1 month after the procedure, the difference in Clinical outcome betweenIAandPAinjections, injection time, ODI score 1 month thereafter, and patient satisfaction. Results: 33 injections (84.6%) were IA, while 6 injections (15.4%) were PAas confirmed by fluoroscopy. The baseline mean pain score decreased from 7.21 to 1.92 one month after injection, andthe ODI results improved from a mean of 61.41 to 17.13. This demonstrates a significant therapeutic response (P<0.05). Moreover, there was no clinical difference observed between IA and PA injections
ER  -