The point prevalence of lumbar pain, which affects approximately 50% to 80% of people in industrialized Western societies at certain periods of their lives and that is one of the main causes of workforce losses, medical costs, and disability, is between 15% and 30%.1–3
2% to 3% of all lumbar pains are those developing in association with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Seventy percent of cases occur in the 30 to 50 age group, while 10% appear after 60. LDH in childhood is very rare.4
One of the many agents leading to lumbar pain is sacroiliac dysfunction, the prevalence of which, based on clinical assessments, is 15% to 30%.5 The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was first described as a joint causing lumbar pain by Goldwaith and Osgood in 1905.6 In a study from 1909 involving SIJ dissection in 50 cadavers and seven cases, Albee described this as a genuine, mobile joint, and reported that lumbar pain and sciatica emerge when it is injured.7,8
The joint has its own particular biomechanical characteristics, anatomical variations, and diffuse neural innervation. The clinical presentation and pain patterns of sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SJD) are therefore still controversial.
The purpose of this study was to establish the prevalence of SJD in patients with LDH and to examine the variations in clinical parameters cause by this combination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This cross-sectional study investigated patients aged 20 to 60 presenting to the Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Clinic, Turkey, due to lumbar-leg pain between January and April 2015. Two hundred thirty-four patients with diagnoses of LDH confirmed by clinical and radiological evaluations were enrolled in the study.
Patients aged 20 to 60, diagnosed with LDH, with cognitive levels sufficient to complete the assessment forms, and agreeing to participate were enrolled. Patients with lumbar pain, the etiology of which was suspected to be inflammatory in character, with structural vertebral deformity or fracture, with severe and progressive neurological deficit, with a history of severe psychiatric disease, with substance and/or alcohol dependence, with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM), malignancy, spinal infection or a history of vertebral surgery, and pregnant subjects were excluded.
Demographic characteristics such as patients’ age, height, body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), marital status, education level, and occupational status, and information concerning history of trauma, and the character, duration, and site of pain were investigated and noted on a case report form.
Before undergoing physical examination, all patients were evaluated in terms of pain threshold measurements using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), using the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale (LANSS) to the determine character of pain, with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for psychological state, using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) for quality of life and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for aversion to movement.
Lumbar spine flexion, extension, and right-left lateral flexion ranges of motion were determined using a universal goniometer and clinical tests were evaluated at physical examination.
In terms of clinical tests, Lasegue test, contralateral Lasegue, and the femoral nerve stretch test were used to determine LDH and six provocation tests (distraction, compression, Gaenslen, thigh thrust, sacral thrust, and Fleksiyon- Abduction – Eksternal Rotasyon (FABER) tests) for the SIJ. Based on the data from previous studies, patients with three or more positive provocation tests were diagnosed with SJD.11–13 In addition, all patients were asked about SIJ pain (pain when rising from a seated position, getting out of cars, and climbing stairs), and the data were recorded.
A power analysis using the formula n = t2pq /d2 was performed to determine the sample size. Based on those data we concluded that a minimum of 174 and a maximum of 322 patients would be required to achieve significant results, and 234 patients were enrolled.
The study data were expressed as mean plus standard deviation (SD) for constant variables values and as number and percentage for categoric variables. The chi-square test was used to analyze categoric variables. Results were evaluated at a 95% confidence interval at a significance level of P < 0.05. The analysis was performed on SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences - SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for Windows 16.0 software.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline has been implemented in this manuscript.
Two hundred thirty-four patients, 148 females (63.2%) and 86 males (36.8%), with a clinical diagnosis of LDH and with disk protrusion and/or extrusion identified at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included in the study. The presence of SJD was determined in 78 (33.3%) of the 234 patients using provocation tests. Dysfunction in the SIJ was determined on the right in 52.6% of patients and on the left in 47.4%. Patients were divided into groups, with or without SJD, and then compared.
The ages of the 234 subjects in the study ranged between 20 and 60, the mean age being 46.72 ± 11.14. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of height, body weight, BMI, age, marital status, education, or employment (P > 0.05). A significant difference between the groups was observed only in terms of sex, the presence of SJD being higher in women (P = 0.005). Demographic data are shown in Table 1.
Comparisons were performed between the groups in terms of location of pain, pain in the hip (SIJ), remaining standing for long periods, walking some distance and pain when rising from a seated position, getting out of a car or walking upstairs. Statistically, significant variation was determined in terms of the location of pain and prolonged standing (P < 0.05). No statistically significant variation was observed at a comparison of the location of pain and pain arising with prolonged standing (P > 0.05). The findings are shown in Table 2.
No statistically significance was determined between the groups in terms of duration of pain, VAS at rest, VAS during activity, and nocturnal VAS scores (P = 0.79, P = 0.96, P = 0.13, and P = 0.07, and P > 0.05, respectively).
Although greater lumbosacral joint and SIJ degeneration were determined at radiological imaging in the SJD group, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.33 and P > 0.05, respectively).
Examination of lumbar MRI findings revealed hernial protrusion in 94.9% (n = 222) of patients and extrusion in 5.1% (n = 12), but no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (P = 0.75; P > 0.05). Examination of lumbar disk hernia levels revealed L5–S1 disk herniation in 53% of patients, L4–5 in 38.5%, L3–4 in 8.1%, and L2–3 in 0.4%. No significant variation was determined between the two groups (P = 0.70; P > 0.05).
Tests aimed at assessing LDH revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of Lasegue test, contralateral Lasegue, and the femoral nerve stretch test (P = 0.18, P = 0.13, and P = 1.00, P > 0.05, respectively). However, a statistically significant difference was observed in tenderness along the sciatic nerve (Valleix point) (P = 0.003, P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of lumbar range of motion, hand-ground distance sensory deficit (root level), or decreased deep tendon reflexes in the patellar and Achilles tendons (P = 0.55, P = 0.76, P = 0.71, P = 0.33, and P = 1.00, P > 0.05, respectively).
No statistically significant difference was determined between the groups at evaluation of extremity length measurements (P = 0.72, P > 0.05), while comparison of SIJ provocation tests revealed significant variation in increasing pain with the Compression Test and the FABER, Gaenslen, Posterior Shear Test (POSH), and Sacral Thrust tests (P < 0.001).
Significant variation was observed between the groups in terms of the Beck Depression Scale, LANSS pain scale, HAQ, and Tampa kinesophobia scale (P < 0.05).
When BDI results were evaluated, the presence of moderate and severe depression was significantly higher in the SJD group, while in the non-SJD group, the non-depression group was significantly higher.
Patients were also evaluated using LANSS for neuropathic pain. The findings revealed that the presence of neuropathic pain was significantly higher in the SJD group.
The HAQ was used to evaluate the quality of life in our population and quality of life was significantly lower in SJD group.
Aversion to movement, evaluated using the Tampa Scale for Kinesophobia, was significantly higher in the group with SJD.
The findings are shown in Table 3.
The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of SJD in patients diagnosed with LDH through clinical examination and lumbar MRI presenting with lumbar-leg pain to the Okmeydani Training and Research Hospital PTR clinic and to assess the effect of this combination on clinical status, pain, and quality of life.
No significant difference was determined between the SJD and non-SJD groups in terms of age, BMI, marital status, or education levels. The incidence of SJD was higher among women in this study. Madani et al9 described female sex, a history of recurring lumbar pain and a heavy workload as significant risk factors for SJD. In that study, 55.9% of patients with SJD were female. It has been suggested that the greater incidence of SJD in female patients may be due to the effects on the SIJ of fertility, lifestyle, or low levels of exercise.9
Some studies have reported a decrease of at least 80% in VAS scores with local anesthesia injection guided by fluoroscopy, the gold standard technique for the diagnosis of SJD syndrome.10 Since SIJ blocks only provide information about pathologies of joint origin and SJD developing secondary to pathologies of structures around the joint can be overlooked, SIJ provocation and palpation tests also need to be used for diagnosis. The studies evaluating the validity and reliability of provocation tests in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint dysfunction reported that three or more positive provocative tests, which include especially Ganslen, FABER, thigh thrust (POSH), compression and distraction tests, were highly sensitive and specific.11–13 However, all of these studies reported that should be used multiple tests for the diagnosis of SIJD and individual tests exhibited low reliability. Dreyfuss et al14 examined SI joint tests in a group consisting of asymptomatic individuals and observed symptoms of SIJD in 20% of asymptomatic patients. van der Wurff et al15 reported that the presence of three or more positive provocation tests in patients with pain deriving from the SI joint varied between 65% and 93%. Six provocation tests used in the diagnosis of SJD were performed on all patients in this study, and SJD was confirmed in the presence of three or more positive results.
The prevalence of SJD has been reported at 24% to 72.3% in previous studies.9,17,20,21 Madani et al9 investigated 202 patients aged 19 to 70, with LDH, determined at imaging and with physical findings of lumbosacral root irritation and reported SJD in 146 (72.3%) subjects. The authors reported that the estimated prevalence of SJD being significantly higher (72.3%) than that in previous studies16–19 might be explained in terms of the importance of non-joint factors that cannot be identified with SJD blocks.9
The prevalence of SJD in this study was 33.3%. SJD was located on the right in 52.6% of patients and on the left in 47.4%. Madani et al9 reported involvement on the left in 95.2% of patients with SJD, on both right and left in 2.1% and on the right in 2.7%. Slipman et al20 reported SJD on the right in 45% of cases, on the left in 35%, and bilateral in 20%.
Fortin et al22 reported the need to establish a pain chart in the diagnosis of SJD and showed on the basis of that chart that pain in patients with SJD was generally unilateral in the posterior superior iliac spine region. Pain diffusion map data are consistent with those of several previous clinical studies.15,19,23–29
In terms of pain distribution, van der Wurff et al15 reported that in SJD the patient directly indicated the painful joint. Weksler et al21 concluded that pain in 50 cases of lumbar pain and LDH diagnosed with SJD was distributed at 36% in the hip, inguinal in 26%, in the knee in 14%, in the calf in 14%, and in the foot in 10%.
Slipman et al30 reported hip pain in 94% of patients with SJD, lumbar pain in 72%, lower extremity pain in 50%, leg pain descending below the knee in 28%, and pain in the foot in 1%.
Analysis of pain location in the patients in our study population revealed that subjects most commonly presented with lumbar-leg pain, if no discrimination is made between right and left sides, and with lumbar and lumbar-left leg pain if right and left sides are differentiated. When the SJD and non-SJD groups were analyzed separately, greater lumbar-leg pain was observed in both groups than lumbar pain. However, when right and left side pain location differentiation was performed, right or left lumbar-leg pain was greater than lumbar pain in the SJD group, while in the non-SJD group lumber pain was greater than right or left lumbar-leg pain.
Evaluation of pain in the hip and gluteal region revealed no hip pain in 28.6% of patients, while in subjects with hip pain, levels of right and left side pain was similar, but slightly higher on the left. In the SJD group, the pain was present in 73.3% of patients, and pain in the left hip and the gluteal region was more prevalent than pain on the right. In the non-SJD group, the distributions of patients with no hip pain and of patients with pain in the right or left hip were approximately equal.
Evaluation of the BDI results in the patient population showed that subjects without depression constituted the majority in both groups. In the SJD group, the presence of moderate and severe depression was significantly higher, while in the non-SJD group, the non-depression group was significantly higher. These findings show that the prevalence of depression was higher in the SJD group and that such patients should be particularly evaluated in terms of depression.
Since our study evaluated patients with LDH, which directly concerns the neural stems, and considering the proximity of the SIJ to neural structures, patients were also evaluated using LANSS for neuropathic pain. The findings revealed neuropathic pain in 39.7% of the SJD group and in 21.2% of the non-SJD group. On the basis of these data, a significant difference was determined the prevalence of neuropathic pain was greater in the group with SJD. In addition, evaluation of sensitivity along the sciatic nerve (Valleix points) revealed 46.2% positivity in the SJD group and 26.3% positivity in the non-SJD group. On the basis of these findings, the presence of sensitivity along the sciatic nerve (Valleix points) was significantly higher in the group with SJD. In the literature, the presence of sensitivity and neuropathic pain along the sciatic nerve is thought to be associated with neighboring piriformis muscle spasm and sciatic nerve irritation secondary to SJD pathologies.31
Cheng and Ferrante32 compared patients diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathy and patients with SJD, assessing McGill pain scores, visual analog scores, and short form-36 quality of life scales. They concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between the patients with SJD and those with lumbar radiculopathy. The HAQ was used to evaluate the quality of life in our population and in agreement with the literature, statistically significant elevation was determined the group with LDH and SJD, indicating poor quality of life.
Aversion to movement, evaluated using the Tampa Scale for Kinesophobia, was significantly prevalent in the group with SJD, similarly to the prevalence of poor quality of life. Our scan of the literature revealed that the Tampa Scale for Kinesophobia and BDI had not previously been used in studies of patients with SJD. We think that in the light of the determination in this study of the fact that the presence of SJD accompanying LDH causes an increase in the prevalence of both kinesophobia and depression, these two conditions should be assessed separately both in daily practice and in future studies.
There are a number of significant limitations to this study. The inclusion of patients with lumbar pain secondary to LDH may have led to the relation between the prevalence of SJD and other clinical entities being overlooked. In addition, fluoroscopy-guided local anesthesia injection into the SIJ, one of the criteria set out in the diagnosis of SJD by the International Association for the Study of Pain in 1994, was not performed. However, we think that the appropriate patient number in the study population, an upper age limit of 60 being imposed, rheumatological diseases being regarded as an exclusion criterion and patient examinations and all assessments being performed by a single physician being under equivalent conditions for all patients increase the reliability and validity of the data.
In conclusion, SJD is a pathology accompanying disc degeneration at a level of approximately one in three in patients with LDH, and this condition should be considered when planning a conservative treatment protocol for patients with lumbar or lumbar-leg pain. SIJ involvement should be determined using SIJ provocation tests in patients with LDH, particularly when conservative treatment is unsuccessful. In this way, the attention of physicians and surgeons can be diverted from the intervertebral disk to the SIJ for the avoidance of unnecessary lumbar region surgery based on pain indications.
- One of the many agents leading to lumbar pain is sacroiliac dysfunction, the prevalence of which, based on clinical assessments, is 15% to 30%.
- The level of sacroiliac joint dysfunction was 33.3% in our research population. In terms of sex distribution, the proportion of women was higher in the group with sacroiliac joint dysfunction.
- The level of neuropathic pain, the presence of depression and kinesophobia were significantly higher in the group with dysfunction.
- In addition, functional capacity was worse in the group with sacroiliac joint dysfunction.
1. van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Esmail R, et al. Exercise therapy for low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of The Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2. KopecF JA, Sayre EC, Esdaile JM. Predictors of back pain in a general population cohort. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2004; 29:70–77. discussion 77-8.
3. Resnick D, Niwayama G. Resnick D, Kransdorf M. Degenerative disease of the spine. Bone and Joint İmaging
3rd ed.Philedelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1992. 413–439.
4. Marshall WJ, Schorstein J. Factors affecting the results of surgery for prolapsed lumbar
intervertebral. Disc Scott Med J
5. Maigne JY, Aivaliklis A, Pfefer F. Results of sacroiliac joint
double block and value of sacroiliac pain provocation tests in 54 patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
6. Goldthwaite GE, Osgood RB. A consideration of the pelvic articulations from an anatomical, pathological, and clinical standpoint. Boston Med Surg J
7. Albee FH. A study of the anatomy and the clinical importance of the sacroiliac joint
8. Zelle BA, Gruen GS, Brown S, et al. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction
: evaluation and management. Clin J Pain
9. Madani SP, Dadian M, Firouznia K, et al. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction
in patients with herniated lumbar
disc: a cross-sectional study. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil
10. Chou LH, Slipman CW, Bhagia SM, et al. Inciting events initiating injection-proven sacroiliac joint
syndrome. Pain Med
11. Laslett M. Evidence-base diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint
. J Man Manip Ther
12. Cibulka MT, Delitto A, Koldehoff RM. Changes in innominate tilt after manipulation of the sacroiliac joint
in patients with low back pain: an experimental study. Phys Ther
13. Delitto A, Shulman AD, Rose SJ. On developing expert-based decision-support systems in physical therapy: the NIOSH low back atlas. Phys Ther
14. Dreyfusss P, Dreyer S, Griffin J, et al. Positive sacroiliac screening tests in the asymptomatic adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
15. van der Wurff P, Hagmeijer RHM, Meyne W. Clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint
. A systemic methodological review. Part 1. Man Ther
16. Prather H, Hunt D. Conservative management of low back pain, part I. Sacroiliac joint
pain. Dis Mon
17. Galm R, Fröhling M, Rittmeister M, et al. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction
in patients with imaging-proven lumbar
disc herniation. Eur Spine J
18. Holmgren U, Waling K. Inter-examiner reliability of four static palpation tests used for assessing pelvic dysfunction
. Man Ther
2008; 13:50–56. Epub 2007 Jan 8.
19. Bernard TN Jr, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Recognizing specific characteristics of nonspecific low back pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res
20. Slipman CW, Sterenfeld EB, Chou LH, et al. The predictive value of provocative sacroiliac joint
stress maneuvers in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint
syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
21. Weksler N, Velan GJ, Semionov M, et al. The role of sacroiliac joint dysfunction
in the genesis of low back pain: the obvious is not always right. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
2007; 127:885–888. Epub 2007 Sep 8.
22. Fortin JD, Aprill CN, Ponthieux B, et al. Sacroiliac joint
: pain referral maps upon applying a new injection/arthrography technique. Part II: Clinical evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
23. Cibulka MT. The treatment of the sacroiliac joint
component to low back pain: a case report. Phys Ther
24. Cibulka MT, Erhard RE, Delitto A. Vleeming A, Mooney V, Snijders C, Dorman T. Pain patterns in patients with and without sacroiliac joint dysfunction
. Proceedings from the First lnterdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back Pain and its Relation to the Sacroiliac Joint
. San Diego, CA: 1992. 362–369.
25. Mennell JM. Back Pain: Diagnosis and Treatment Using Manipulative Techniques. Little, Brown Co., 1st ed.Boston: 1960.
26. Porterfield JA, De Rosa C. Gould JA. The sacroiliac joint
. Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
2nd ed.St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Company; 1990. 564–573.
27. Porterfield JA, DeRosa CP. Mechanical Low Back Pain: Perspectives in Functional Anatomy. W.B., Saunders Company, 2nd ed.Philadelphia, PA: 1998.
28. Shaw JL. Vleeming A, Mooney V, Snijders C, Dorman T. The role of the sacroiliac joint
as a cause of low back pain and dysfunction
. Proceedings from the First Interdisciplinary World Congress on Low Back Pain and its Relation to the Sacroiliac Joint
. San Diego, CA: 1992. 67–80.
29. Stoddard A. Donatelli R. The lumbar
-pelvic-hip complex. Manual of Osteopathic Practice
Hutchinson & Company, 2nd ed.London, England: 1983.
30. Slipman CW, Jackson HB, Lipetz JS, et al. Sacroiliac joint
pain referral zones. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
31. Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Biyani A, et al. The relationship of lumbosacral plexus to the sacrum and the sacroiliac joint
. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ)
32. Cheng MB, Ferrante FM. Health related quality of life in sacroiliac syndrome: a comparison to lumbosacral radiculopathy. Reg Anesth Pain Med