Sacroiliac Joint Somatic DysfunctionPhase 3NCT04534829
Fluoroscopic vs Ultrasound Guided Sacroiliac (SI) Joint Radiofrequency Ablation
A Phase 3 study testing Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency Ablation and Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation in people with Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction, run by University of Alberta at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be the source of low mechanical back pain in 10-27% of patients. When conservative measures for treating SIJ pain fail (physiotherapy, exercise, analgesic medications, chiropractic manipulation, etc.) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a treatment option in carefully selected… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction
- What is being tested?
- Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency Ablation and Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Jan 2021to Jan 2023
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥ 18
- Body Mass Index (BMI) ≤35
- Clinical presentation must be in keeping with SIJ pain based on both history (pain below L5 vertebrae, localized to the SIJ area, back pain greater than leg pain) and/or physical examination (≥2/5 SIJ provocative tests).
- Diagnosis confirmed by having >70% index pain relief with fluoroscopy-guided SIJ lateral branch blocks (with local anesthetic). Participants will require confirmatory lateral branch block under their respective image modality once randomized, requiring >70% pain relief for diagnosis, prior to completing the randomized SIJ RFA procedure.
Who cannot join
- Age <18
- Pregnant or inadequate birth control methods (to prevent the exposure of a pregnant female and/or fetus to radiation).
- Inflammatory spondyloarthropathy
- Fibromyalgia
- Radiculopathy (will require an electromyography study to rule out radiculopathy if clinically suspected in patients with primarily buttock pain)
- Discogenic low mechanical back pain
Show all 10Show fewer
- Symptomatic spinal stenosis
- Generalized or local infection
- Coagulopathy
- Allergy to local anesthetic
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Efficacy of Fluoroscopic Versus Ultrasound Guided Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation: A Randomized Control Trial
The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be the source of low mechanical back pain in 10-27% of patients. When conservative measures for treating SIJ pain fail (physiotherapy, exercise, analgesic medications, chiropractic manipulation, etc.) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a treatment option in carefully selected patients. RFA uses a radiofrequency generator to create a thermal lesion, with the aim of ablating the nerves that innervate the SIJ complex. Studies have confirmed that SIJ RFA can provide significant relief for patients with SIJ pain. The current gold standard is the use of fluoroscopic (x-ray guidance) to visualize bony landmarks in order to create an accurate thermal lesion along the lateral sacral crest; where the nerves that innervate the SIJ complex reside. Recent literature has proposed a technique for an ultrasound-guided approach to achieve an RFA lesion in patients with SIJ pain. It is proposed that with ultrasound-guidance, versus fluoroscopic-guidance, the interventionalist is able to perform fewer needle passes for the procedure, as well as fewer thermal lesions, thereby achieving shorter performance times. The proposed study serves as a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided RFA for the treatment of SIJ pain.
Read the detailed description
Current practice for SIJ pain that is refractory to conservative treatment, is the use of RFA of the posterior sacral network under fluoroscopic-guidance. There is high variability regarding the long-term benefits of this procedure. To date, there have been no clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of US-guided RFA procedures for SIJ pain. A study performed in 2017 attempted to determine the effectiveness of US-guided sacral LBBs compared to fluoroscopic-guidance (gold standard in current practice). The results were in favour of an US-guided approach. Compared with fluoroscopy, US-guided sacral lateral branch blocks required a shorter performance time, fewer needle passes, and was associated with a lower incidence of vascular breach. Furthermore, with an US-guided procedure, the patient is no longer exposed to ionizing radiation.With an improved understanding of SIJ sensory innervation, as well as technical improvements in RFA electrodes, it is postulated that RFA under ultrasound-guidance will lead to non-inferior clinical outcomes, as well as shorter performance time and reduced costs compared with the current practice of fluoroscopic-guidance.
The objectives of the current study are the following:
- To evaluate the efficacy of US-guided posterior sacral network SIJ RFA compared to fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA.
- To compare the post-procedure pain/flare-up and duration required to achieve full recovery for each approach.
- To perform a cost effectiveness analysis comparing ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA.
- To determine the safety of US-guided SIJ RFA by tracking intra-operative and post-procedure complications.
Research Method/Procedures:
The proposed study is a single-blind, single-center randomized controlled trial. Patients who present with pain thought to be originating from the SIJ will be screened for study participation with fluoroscopy-guided sacral LBBs. If a patient has an initial successful sacral LBB (defined as 70% reduction in pain), or has prior successful SIJ RFA, they will be approached for consent to be contacted for study participation by a member of the HealthPointe team; specifically, patients who consent to be contacted for study participation, will have their charts reviewed by independent assessors for inclusion and exclusion criteria. If a patient meets the inclusion criteria (listed below), they will be contacted by a HealthPointe team member, specifically a nurse or care manager, for study participation. If the patient expresses an interest with the initial contact, they will be subsequently contacted by a study sub-investigator.
Upon obtaining written consent for study participation, patients will be randomized into one of two groups; US-guided SIJ RFA or fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA (current gold-standard). Upon being randomized to either group they will then undergo a second confirmatory sacral LBB under their respective image guidance to confirm candidacy for RFA. If this second, confirmatory LBB is successful (70% pain relief or more) the patient qualifies for RFA. Then, SIJ RFA will be performed under each respective imaging modality and patients will be followed to document pain improvement, functional outcomes, quality of life and medication use for 18 months. Study participants will be asked to perform a daily VAS pain diary for the first 6 weeks post-procedure in order to document post-procedure pain flare. Questionnaires will be administered either in person (if appropriate), or by email or over the phone, at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months post-RFA procedure.
The primary endpoint is 12 months post-procedure, however the investigators plan to follow for 18 months to determine long-term effectiveness. The investigators will perform an interim-analysis at the 6-month follow-up time period.
In further analyses, the effect of the intervention groups on secondary outcomes listed below will be evaluated:
The average time (in days) for post-procedure pain flare. Pain medication use post-procedure (% increase or decrease from baseline). Participation in physiotherapy and exercise programs (as a binary variable: yes or no) Cost effectiveness analysis comparing procedures based on the following mean data: performance time, radiation time, number of thermal lesions performed, number of RFA needle passes, volume of local anesthetic used. Cost will be compared based on mean data for fluoroscopy- and ultrasound-guided procedures, as well as the cost of monopolar vs. bipolar RFA.
Safety: this will include intra-operative complications related directly to the intervention, as well as post-operative complications and adverse events over the study duration.
- Conditions
- Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction
- Being tested
- Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency Ablation, Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation
- Keywords
- Radiofrequency Ablation, Fluoroscopy, Ultrasound, Sacroiliac joint
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency AblationProcedure or surgery
Radiofrequency ablation of the posterior SIJ complex under fluoroscopic-guidance
Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency AblationProcedure or surgery
Radiofrequency ablation of the posterior SIJ complex under ultrasound-guidance
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound-Guided SIJ RFA | Experimental | Utilizing short axis views, the S1, S2 and S3 foramen and tubercles would be localized and marked by a surgical skin marker. Then, the ultrasound transducer will be moved laterally to achieve a long axis view between the S1 and S2 tubercle. Local skin and subcutaneous tissue freezing would be performed with Lidocaine 1% utilizing a 30-gauge needle. An 18-gauge radiofrequency (RF) cannula will be directed utilizing an in-plane approach toward the S2 and S3 lateral branches between the S2 and S3 tubercles. A small amount of 1% lidocaine will be injected in order to provide comfort.
The RF generator will be set to continuous monopolar RF ablation and the needle will be heated to 80 degrees Celsius for 90 seconds. The needle will then be repositioned proximally to obtain a slightly larger burn in a similar fashion previously described. A similar approach will be utilized for the S1 lateral branch RF ablation between the S1 and S2 tubercles. Receives: Procedure: Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation |
| Fluoroscopic-Guided SIJ RFA | Active comparator | An anterior-posterior approach is used to identify the S1-S3 foramen. A 3-inch spinal needle would be used for marking. Local tissue freezing would be accomplished with Lidocaine 1% and a 30-G needle. An 18-G RF cannula will be positioned over the 12 o'clock position of the S1 foramen and a second cannula placed in the 2 o'clock or 10 o'clock position for the right and left respectively (4-5 mm distance between the cannula). A small amount of 1% lidocaine will be injected for comfort. A lateral projection is taken to ensure the needles are not placed into the foramen. The RF generator will be set to continuous bipolar RF ablation and heated to 80 degrees Celsius for 90 seconds. Then another 18-G RF cannula will be positioned at the 4 o'clock or 8 o'clock position (4-5 mm distance between the cannula) to achieve the second RF ablation. The third RF ablation will be performed with the RF cannula at the 6 o'clock position. An identical fashion is utilized at the S2 and S3 foramen. Receives: Procedure: Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency Ablation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain reduction: change from baseline pain scores
Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at the various follow-up time periods. The visual analog scale is a numerical scale from 0 to 10; with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable.
Measured: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.
Function and quality of life
Pain, Disability and Quality of Life Questionnaire- Spine (PDQQ-S)
Measured: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.
Secondary outcomes (3)
Post-procedure pain flare
Daily visual analog scale (VAS) for pain for the first 6 weeks post-procedure to document post-procedure pain flare. The visual analog scale is a numerical scale from 0 to 10; with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable.
Measured: Daily visual analog scale (VAS) for pain for the first 6 weeks.
Pain medication usage
Percentage increase or decrease from patients baseline.
Measured: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.
Cost effectiveness
Compare study arms based on the following mean data; performance time, radiation time, number of thermal lesions performed, number of RFA needle passes, volume of local anesthetic used. Cost will be compared based on mean data for fluoroscopy- and ultrasound-guided procedures, as well as the cost of monopolar vs. bipolar RFA
Measured: Costs compared based on procedural data upon study completion, an average of 18 months.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Sep 2020
- Study startJan 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completionJun 2022 (estimated)
- Study completionJan 2023 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Study cancelled
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Sacroiliac Joint Somatic DysfunctionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of AlbertaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Patients who present with pain thought to be originating from the SIJ will be screened for study participation with fluoroscopy-guided sacral lateral branch blocks (LBB). If a patient has an initial successful sacral LBB (defined as 70% reduction in pain), or has prior successful SIJ RFA, they will be approached for consent to be contacted for study participation. Upon obtaining written consent for study participation, patients will be randomized into one of two groups; US-guided SIJ RFA or fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA (current gold-standard). Upon being randomized to either group they will then undergo a second confirmatory sacral LBB under their respective image guidance to confirm candidacy for RFA. If this second, confirmatory LBB is successful (70% pain relief) they qualify for RFA. Then, SIJ RFA will be performed under each respective imaging modality and patients will be followed to document pain improvement, functional outcomes, quality of life and medication use for 18 months.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Alberta
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Shane Hoeber, M.D., Principal investigator, University of Alberta
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04534829
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Pro00102343
- Status last verified
- May 2022
- First submitted
- 20 Jul 2020
- Last updated
- 1 Jun 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Aydin SM, Gharibo CG, Mehnert M, Stitik TP. The role of radiofrequency ablation for sacroiliac joint pain: a meta-analysis. PM R. 2010 Sep;2(9):842-51. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.03.035.
PubMed 20869684Cohen 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.
PubMed 23253394Dreyfuss P, Henning T, Malladi N, Goldstein B, Bogduk N. The ability of multi-site, multi-depth sacral lateral branch blocks to anesthetize the sacroiliac joint complex. Pain Med. 2009 May-Jun;10(4):679-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00631.x.
PubMed 19638143Finlayson RJ, Etheridge JB, Elgueta MF, Thonnagith A, De Villiers F, Nelems B, Tran DQ. A Randomized Comparison Between Ultrasound- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Sacral Lateral Branch Blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):400-406. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000569.
PubMed 28178092Roberts 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.
PubMed 25304483Roberts SL, Burnham RS, Agur AM, Loh EY. A Cadaveric Study Evaluating the Feasibility of an Ultrasound-Guided Diagnostic Block and Radiofrequency Ablation Technique for Sacroiliac Joint Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan/Feb;42(1):69-74. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000515.
PubMed 27811527Roberts 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.
PubMed 29415262
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Jun 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy of Fluoroscopic Versus Ultrasound Guided Sacroiliac Joint Radiofrequency Ablation: A Randomized Control Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04534829
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Pro00102343
- Conditions
- Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction
- Keywords
- Radiofrequency Ablation, Fluoroscopy, Ultrasound, Sacroiliac joint
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Study cancelled
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AlbertaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jan 2023 (estimated)
- First posted
- 1 Sep 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be the source of low mechanical back pain in 10-27% of patients. When conservative measures for treating SIJ pain fail (physiotherapy, exercise, analgesic medications, chiropractic manipulation, etc.) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a treatment option in carefully selected patients. RFA uses a radiofrequency generator to create a thermal lesion, with the aim of ablating the nerves that innervate the SIJ complex. Studies have confirmed that SIJ RFA can provide significant relief for patients with SIJ pain. The current gold standard is the use of fluoroscopic (x-ray guidance) to visualize bony landmarks in order to create an accurate thermal lesion along the lateral sacral crest; where the nerves that innervate the SIJ complex reside. Recent literature has proposed a technique for an ultrasound-guided approach to achieve an RFA lesion in patients with SIJ pain. It is proposed that with ultrasound-guidance, versus fluoroscopic-guidance, the interventionalist is able to perform fewer needle passes for the procedure, as well as fewer thermal lesions, thereby achieving shorter performance times. The proposed study serves as a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided RFA for the treatment of SIJ pain.
Detailed description
Current practice for SIJ pain that is refractory to conservative treatment, is the use of RFA of the posterior sacral network under fluoroscopic-guidance. There is high variability regarding the long-term benefits of this procedure. To date, there have been no clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of US-guided RFA procedures for SIJ pain. A study performed in 2017 attempted to determine the effectiveness of US-guided sacral LBBs compared to fluoroscopic-guidance (gold standard in current practice). The results were in favour of an US-guided approach. Compared with fluoroscopy, US-guided sacral lateral branch blocks required a shorter performance time, fewer needle passes, and was associated with a lower incidence of vascular breach. Furthermore, with an US-guided procedure, the patient is no longer exposed to ionizing radiation.With an improved understanding of SIJ sensory innervation, as well as technical improvements in RFA electrodes, it is postulated that RFA under ultrasound-guidance will lead to non-inferior clinical outcomes, as well as shorter performance time and reduced costs compared with the current practice of fluoroscopic-guidance.
The objectives of the current study are the following:
- To evaluate the efficacy of US-guided posterior sacral network SIJ RFA compared to fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA.
- To compare the post-procedure pain/flare-up and duration required to achieve full recovery for each approach.
- To perform a cost effectiveness analysis comparing ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA.
- To determine the safety of US-guided SIJ RFA by tracking intra-operative and post-procedure complications.
Research Method/Procedures:
The proposed study is a single-blind, single-center randomized controlled trial. Patients who present with pain thought to be originating from the SIJ will be screened for study participation with fluoroscopy-guided sacral LBBs. If a patient has an initial successful sacral LBB (defined as 70% reduction in pain), or has prior successful SIJ RFA, they will be approached for consent to be contacted for study participation by a member of the HealthPointe team; specifically, patients who consent to be contacted for study participation, will have their charts reviewed by independent assessors for inclusion and exclusion criteria. If a patient meets the inclusion criteria (listed below), they will be contacted by a HealthPointe team member, specifically a nurse or care manager, for study participation. If the patient expresses an interest with the initial contact, they will be subsequently contacted by a study sub-investigator.
Upon obtaining written consent for study participation, patients will be randomized into one of two groups; US-guided SIJ RFA or fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA (current gold-standard). Upon being randomized to either group they will then undergo a second confirmatory sacral LBB under their respective image guidance to confirm candidacy for RFA. If this second, confirmatory LBB is successful (70% pain relief or more) the patient qualifies for RFA. Then, SIJ RFA will be performed under each respective imaging modality and patients will be followed to document pain improvement, functional outcomes, quality of life and medication use for 18 months. Study participants will be asked to perform a daily VAS pain diary for the first 6 weeks post-procedure in order to document post-procedure pain flare. Questionnaires will be administered either in person (if appropriate), or by email or over the phone, at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months post-RFA procedure.
The primary endpoint is 12 months post-procedure, however the investigators plan to follow for 18 months to determine long-term effectiveness. The investigators will perform an interim-analysis at the 6-month follow-up time period.
In further analyses, the effect of the intervention groups on secondary outcomes listed below will be evaluated:
The average time (in days) for post-procedure pain flare. Pain medication use post-procedure (% increase or decrease from baseline). Participation in physiotherapy and exercise programs (as a binary variable: yes or no) Cost effectiveness analysis comparing procedures based on the following mean data: performance time, radiation time, number of thermal lesions performed, number of RFA needle passes, volume of local anesthetic used. Cost will be compared based on mean data for fluoroscopy- and ultrasound-guided procedures, as well as the cost of monopolar vs. bipolar RFA.
Safety: this will include intra-operative complications related directly to the intervention, as well as post-operative complications and adverse events over the study duration.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Patients who present with pain thought to be originating from the SIJ will be screened for study participation with fluoroscopy-guided sacral lateral branch blocks (LBB). If a patient has an initial successful sacral LBB (defined as 70% reduction in pain), or has prior successful SIJ RFA, they will be approached for consent to be contacted for study participation. Upon obtaining written consent for study participation, patients will be randomized into one of two groups; US-guided SIJ RFA or fluoroscopy-guided SIJ RFA (current gold-standard). Upon being randomized to either group they will then undergo a second confirmatory sacral LBB under their respective image guidance to confirm candidacy for RFA. If this second, confirmatory LBB is successful (70% pain relief) they qualify for RFA. Then, SIJ RFA will be performed under each respective imaging modality and patients will be followed to document pain improvement, functional outcomes, quality of life and medication use for 18 months.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound-Guided SIJ RFA | Experimental | Procedure: Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency AblationUtilizing short axis views, the S1, S2 and S3 foramen and tubercles would be localized and marked by a surgical skin marker. Then, the ultrasound transducer will be moved laterally to achieve a long axis view between the S1 and S2 tubercle. Local skin and subcutaneous tissue freezing would be performed with Lidocaine 1% utilizing a 30-gauge needle. An 18-gauge radiofrequency (RF) cannula will be directed utilizing an in-plane approach toward the S2 and S3 lateral branches between the S2 and S3 tubercles. A small amount of 1% lidocaine will be injected in order to provide comfort. The RF generator will be set to continuous monopolar RF ablation and the needle will be heated to 80 degrees Celsius for 90 seconds. The needle will then be repositioned proximally to obtain a slightly larger burn in a similar fashion previously described. A similar approach will be utilized for the S1 lateral branch RF ablation between the S1 and S2 tubercles. |
| Fluoroscopic-Guided SIJ RFA | Active comparator | Procedure: Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency AblationAn anterior-posterior approach is used to identify the S1-S3 foramen. A 3-inch spinal needle would be used for marking. Local tissue freezing would be accomplished with Lidocaine 1% and a 30-G needle. An 18-G RF cannula will be positioned over the 12 o'clock position of the S1 foramen and a second cannula placed in the 2 o'clock or 10 o'clock position for the right and left respectively (4-5 mm distance between the cannula). A small amount of 1% lidocaine will be injected for comfort. A lateral projection is taken to ensure the needles are not placed into the foramen. The RF generator will be set to continuous bipolar RF ablation and heated to 80 degrees Celsius for 90 seconds. Then another 18-G RF cannula will be positioned at the 4 o'clock or 8 o'clock position (4-5 mm distance between the cannula) to achieve the second RF ablation. The third RF ablation will be performed with the RF cannula at the 6 o'clock position. An identical fashion is utilized at the S2 and S3 foramen. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Age ≥ 18
- Body Mass Index (BMI) ≤35
- Clinical presentation must be in keeping with SIJ pain based on both history (pain below L5 vertebrae, localized to the SIJ area, back pain greater than leg pain) and/or physical examination (≥2/5 SIJ provocative tests).
- Diagnosis confirmed by having >70% index pain relief with fluoroscopy-guided SIJ lateral branch blocks (with local anesthetic). Participants will require confirmatory lateral branch block under their respective image modality once randomized, requiring >70% pain relief for diagnosis, prior to completing the randomized SIJ RFA procedure.
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Age <18
- Pregnant or inadequate birth control methods (to prevent the exposure of a pregnant female and/or fetus to radiation).
- Inflammatory spondyloarthropathy
- Fibromyalgia
- Radiculopathy (will require an electromyography study to rule out radiculopathy if clinically suspected in patients with primarily buttock pain)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency AblationRadiofrequency ablation of the posterior SIJ complex under fluoroscopic-guidance | Procedure or surgery | Fluoroscopic-Guided SIJ RFA |
| Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency AblationRadiofrequency ablation of the posterior SIJ complex under ultrasound-guidance | Procedure or surgery | Ultrasound-Guided SIJ RFA |
Primary outcome
Pain reduction: change from baseline pain scores
Time frame: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.
Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at the various follow-up time periods. The visual analog scale is a numerical scale from 0 to 10; with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing the worst pain imaginable.
Function and quality of life
Time frame: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.
Pain, Disability and Quality of Life Questionnaire- Spine (PDQQ-S)
3 secondary outcomes
Post-procedure pain flare
Time frame: Daily visual analog scale (VAS) for pain for the first 6 weeks.
Pain medication usage
Time frame: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.
Cost effectiveness
Time frame: Costs compared based on procedural data upon study completion, an average of 18 months.
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Jun 2022.
- Background: PubMed 20869684Aydin SM, Gharibo CG, Mehnert M, Stitik TP. The role of radiofrequency ablation for sacroiliac joint pain: a meta-analysis. PM R. 2010 Sep;2(9):842-51. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.03.035.
- Background: PubMed 23253394Cohen 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.
- Background: PubMed 19638143Dreyfuss P, Henning T, Malladi N, Goldstein B, Bogduk N. The ability of multi-site, multi-depth sacral lateral branch blocks to anesthetize the sacroiliac joint complex. Pain Med. 2009 May-Jun;10(4):679-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00631.x.
- Background: PubMed 28178092Finlayson RJ, Etheridge JB, Elgueta MF, Thonnagith A, De Villiers F, Nelems B, Tran DQ. A Randomized Comparison Between Ultrasound- and Fluoroscopy-Guided Sacral Lateral Branch Blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):400-406. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000569.
- Background: PubMed 25304483Roberts 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.
- Background: PubMed 27811527Roberts SL, Burnham RS, Agur AM, Loh EY. A Cadaveric Study Evaluating the Feasibility of an Ultrasound-Guided Diagnostic Block and Radiofrequency Ablation Technique for Sacroiliac Joint Pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017 Jan/Feb;42(1):69-74. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000515.
- Background: PubMed 29415262Roberts 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction
RecruitingObservational study
Medical Record, Physical and Neurological Data That Orient to the Diagnosis of Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction
Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction, Low Back Pain
Active, not recruiting
Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Versus Sham Operation for Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain
Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Shane Hoeber, M.D. principal investigator
University of Alberta
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Fluoroscopic-guided Radiofrequency Ablation and Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation in people with Sacroiliac Joint Somatic Dysfunction, run by University of Alberta at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Jun 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain reduction: change from baseline pain scores (time frame: 6 weeks to 18 months post-procedure.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04534829, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Jun 2022; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.