search
Back to results

Imaging for SIJ Injection Therapy

Primary Purpose

Sacroiliitis, Sacroiliac Joint Pain

Status
Withdrawn
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
sacroiliac joint injection
Sponsored by
University of Washington
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Sacroiliitis focused on measuring 2-dimensional (2-D) fluoroscopy, 3-dimensional (3-D) Computed Tomography (CT) guidance, sacroiliac joint injection

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Age 18 and older
  2. Clinically diagnosed with sacroiliac joint pain
  3. Medically indicated for sacroiliac joint injection (SIJ) therapy (with chronic sacroiliac joint pain, debilitating with pain score > 4 and not responsive to conservative medical management)
  4. Financial pre-authorization of SIJ injection approved by insurance
  5. English speaking
  6. Scheduled for SIJ injection on the Allura machine

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Patient refusal or inability to study informed consent

Sites / Locations

  • UW Center for Pain Relief

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Active Comparator

Arm Label

Group 1

Group 2

Arm Description

conventional 2-D fluoroscopy guidance as the first choice of guidance

3-D CT guidance as the first choice of guidance

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

The success rate of sacroiliac joint injection
the difference between the success rate of Sacroiliac Joint injection under 3-D CBCT and that of 2-D fluoroscopy guidance
The crossover rate from the first choice guidance to back-up guidance
The crossover rate from the first choice guidance to back-up guidance after three best attempts

Secondary Outcome Measures

Procedure Radiation Dose
Measurement of radiation dose in Rads during procedure.
Procedure Contrast Dose
Measurement of contrast dose in mL during procedure.
Procedure Duration
Length of time for procedure measured in minutes.
Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events
Tachycardia, hypertension, vasovagal reaction, procedural abortion, etc.
Procedure Pain
Pre-procedure typical baseline pain and post-procedure typical pain measured on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale. This scale measures the pain intensity and percentage of pain relief. The left zero end represents no pain and right 10 end represents worst pain imaginable.
Patient Satisfaction Score
Procedure Satisfaction Score measured on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale. The left zero end represents not satisfied at all and the right 10 end represents 100% satisfaction.
Needle placement attempts
Number of attempts to place needle for procedure.

Full Information

First Posted
June 7, 2019
Last Updated
April 29, 2021
Sponsor
University of Washington
Collaborators
Philips Medical Systems
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03992053
Brief Title
Imaging for SIJ Injection Therapy
Official Title
The Clinic Application of CBCT XperGuide in Interventional Sacroiliac Joint Pain Therapy
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
April 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Withdrawn
Why Stopped
No subjects were recruited because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is now closed as sponsor milestones (not related to subjects) are completed.
Study Start Date
May 31, 2019 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
April 7, 2021 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
April 7, 2021 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
University of Washington
Collaborators
Philips Medical Systems

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The Research question: Among two standard image guidance techniques [2-dimension (2-D) conventional Fluoroscopy Versus 3-dimension (3-D) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)], which is the better guidance for Sacroiliac Joint Injection therapy and should be used first? The specific aims: To detect the difference of the first-time success rate, the cross-over rate, the procedural time, the radiation exposure, the incidence of adverse events/complications, and overall satisfaction score between the 2-D Fluoroscopy versus 3-D CBCT guidance for SIJ injection.
Detailed Description
There are no published research studies comparing the injection success rates, procedure duration, radiation exposure, and patient comfort between the two standard imaging systems. The investigators hypothesize that the newer 3-D Cone-beam Based Computer Tomography (CBCT) image system will result in higher success rates, shorter procedure times, fewer image snapshots during the procedure, and less patient discomfort than conventional 2-D fluoroscopy imaging. Although the radiation exposure from one-time low-dose 3-D CT reconstruction with CBCT image system at the beginning of the procedure is higher, the number of later snapshots with the 3-D system is likely to be significantly lower. Therefore the 3-D system may result in overall equivalent radiation exposure to the 2-D system. A statistical power analysis was conducted and determined that a sample size of 100 (50 per group) will give 80% power for detecting a difference if the true rates are 65% (2-D Fluoroscopy guidance) and 90% (3-D CBCT guidance). For this study, patients undergoing SIJ injection will be randomized to either Fluoroscopy guidance or CBCT guidance. The primary outcome measure is injection success within 3 attempts of needle placement. Statistical analysis will use the Chi-square test to test whether the rate of injection success differs between the two methods of guidance. In order to provide appropriate clinical care, whenever success is not achieved with the initial guidance method then injection using the other guidance method will be attempted. However, the analysis will only consider whether or not injection success was achieved with the initial guidance method to which the subject was randomized. Whether or not injection success was achieved after crossing over to the other guidance method is not relevant to the primary analysis. In summary, the investigators would like to formally analyze the differences in these two standard image guidance options in SIJ injection therapy. The investigators propose to randomly select the first imaging system that will be utilized during standard medical care in patients scheduled to undergo an SIJ injection. Presumed that there is a difference in success rate between these two standard images, the imaging procedures are considered to be a part of the research.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Sacroiliitis, Sacroiliac Joint Pain
Keywords
2-dimensional (2-D) fluoroscopy, 3-dimensional (3-D) Computed Tomography (CT) guidance, sacroiliac joint injection

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
0 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Group 1
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
conventional 2-D fluoroscopy guidance as the first choice of guidance
Arm Title
Group 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
3-D CT guidance as the first choice of guidance
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
sacroiliac joint injection
Intervention Description
Image-guided sacroiliac joint injection under fluoroscopy or CT guidance and the success of intraarticular access was demonstrated by inter-articular contrast spread (the standard of care, not part of study intervention).
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
The success rate of sacroiliac joint injection
Description
the difference between the success rate of Sacroiliac Joint injection under 3-D CBCT and that of 2-D fluoroscopy guidance
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
The crossover rate from the first choice guidance to back-up guidance
Description
The crossover rate from the first choice guidance to back-up guidance after three best attempts
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Procedure Radiation Dose
Description
Measurement of radiation dose in Rads during procedure.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
Procedure Contrast Dose
Description
Measurement of contrast dose in mL during procedure.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
Procedure Duration
Description
Length of time for procedure measured in minutes.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events
Description
Tachycardia, hypertension, vasovagal reaction, procedural abortion, etc.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
Procedure Pain
Description
Pre-procedure typical baseline pain and post-procedure typical pain measured on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale. This scale measures the pain intensity and percentage of pain relief. The left zero end represents no pain and right 10 end represents worst pain imaginable.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
Patient Satisfaction Score
Description
Procedure Satisfaction Score measured on a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale. The left zero end represents not satisfied at all and the right 10 end represents 100% satisfaction.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods
Title
Needle placement attempts
Description
Number of attempts to place needle for procedure.
Time Frame
during the procedure periods

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Age 18 and older Clinically diagnosed with sacroiliac joint pain Medically indicated for sacroiliac joint injection (SIJ) therapy (with chronic sacroiliac joint pain, debilitating with pain score > 4 and not responsive to conservative medical management) Financial pre-authorization of SIJ injection approved by insurance English speaking Scheduled for SIJ injection on the Allura machine Exclusion Criteria: 1. Patient refusal or inability to study informed consent
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Jiang Wu, MD
Organizational Affiliation
University of Washington
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
UW Center for Pain Relief
City
Seattle
State/Province
Washington
ZIP/Postal Code
98105
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Patient's IPD is confidential information and well protected under HIPPA law, and reinforced by the Institute IRB policy
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
21476020
Citation
Leschka SC, Babic D, El Shikh S, Wossmann C, Schumacher M, Taschner CA. C-arm cone beam computed tomography needle path overlay for image-guided procedures of the spine and pelvis. Neuroradiology. 2012 Mar;54(3):215-23. doi: 10.1007/s00234-011-0866-y. Epub 2011 Apr 8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
19560038
Citation
Orth RC, Wallace MJ, Kuo MD; Technology Assessment Committee of the Society of Interventional Radiology. C-arm cone-beam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Jul;20(7 Suppl):S538-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.026.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18805225
Citation
Scarfe WC, Farman AG. What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;52(4):707-30, v. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2008.05.005.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15661697
Citation
Wagner AL. CT fluoroscopic-guided cervical nerve root blocks. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005 Jan;26(1):43-4.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26563298
Citation
Thakor AS, Patel PA, Gu R, Rea V, Amaral J, Connolly BL. MR cone-beam CT fusion image overlay for fluoroscopically guided percutaneous biopsies in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Mar;46(3):407-12. doi: 10.1007/s00247-015-3479-5. Epub 2015 Nov 13.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22622915
Citation
Simopoulos TT, Manchikanti L, Singh V, Gupta S, Hameed H, Diwan S, Cohen SP. A systematic evaluation of prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint interventions. Pain Physician. 2012 May-Jun;15(3):E305-44.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
23253394
Citation
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.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25677327
Citation
King W, Ahmed SU, Baisden J, Patel N, Kennedy DJ, Duszynski B, MacVicar J. Diagnosis and treatment of posterior sacroiliac complex pain: a systematic review with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Pain Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):257-65. doi: 10.1111/pme.12630. Erratum In: Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2216. Duszynski, Belinda [added].
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26178855
Citation
Kennedy DJ, Engel A, Kreiner DS, Nampiaparampil D, Duszynski B, MacVicar J. Fluoroscopically Guided Diagnostic and Therapeutic Intra-Articular Sacroiliac Joint Injections: A Systematic Review. Pain Med. 2015 Aug;16(8):1500-18. doi: 10.1111/pme.12833. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26815260
Citation
Kasliwal PJ, Kasliwal S. Fluoroscopy-Guided Sacroiliac Joint Injection: Description of a Modified Technique. Pain Physician. 2016 Feb;19(2):E329-38.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26637320
Citation
Hawkins CM, Kukreja K, Singewald T, Minevich E, Johnson ND, Reddy P, Racadio JM. Use of cone-beam CT and live 3-D needle guidance to facilitate percutaneous nephrostomy and nephrolithotripsy access in children and adolescents. Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Apr;46(4):570-4. doi: 10.1007/s00247-015-3499-1. Epub 2015 Dec 4.
Results Reference
background

Learn more about this trial

Imaging for SIJ Injection Therapy

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs