XperGuide in Sacroiliac Joint Injection

Study Purpose

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.

Recruitment Criteria

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Healthy volunteers are participants who do not have a disease or condition, or related conditions or symptoms

No
Study Type

An interventional clinical study is where participants are assigned to receive one or more interventions (or no intervention) so that researchers can evaluate the effects of the interventions on biomedical or health-related outcomes.


An observational clinical study is where participants identified as belonging to study groups are assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.


Searching Both is inclusive of interventional and observational studies.

Observational
Eligible Ages 18 Years and Over
Gender All
More Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

1. English speaking adult patients 2. Medically indicated for sacroiliac joint injection therapy (with chronic sacroiliac joint pain, debilitating with pain score > 4 and not responsive to conservative medical management) 3. Financially pre-authorized by insurance 4. Scheduled for the sacroiliac joint injection therapy

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Patient refusal or inability to study informed consent 2. Contraindicated for the planned treatment

Trial Details

Trial ID:

This trial id was obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, providing information on publicly and privately supported clinical studies of human participants with locations in all 50 States and in 196 countries.

NCT03992053
Phase

Phase 1: Studies that emphasize safety and how the drug is metabolized and excreted in humans.

Phase 2: Studies that gather preliminary data on effectiveness (whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition) and additional safety data.

Phase 3: Studies that gather more information about safety and effectiveness by studying different populations and different dosages and by using the drug in combination with other drugs.

Phase 4: Studies occurring after FDA has approved a drug for marketing, efficacy, or optimal use.

Lead Sponsor

The sponsor is the organization or person who oversees the clinical study and is responsible for analyzing the study data.

University of Washington
Principal Investigator

The person who is responsible for the scientific and technical direction of the entire clinical study.

N/A
Principal Investigator Affiliation N/A
Agency Class

Category of organization(s) involved as sponsor (and collaborator) supporting the trial.

OtherIndustry
Overall Status Not yet recruiting
Countries United States
Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied.

Sacroiliitis, Sacroiliac Joint Pain
Additional Details

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 will give 95% power for detecting a difference if the true rates are 65% (2-D Fluoroscopy guidance) and 95% (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.

Arms & Interventions

Arms

: Group 1

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

: Group 2

3-D CT guidance as the first choice of guidance

Interventions

Other: - sacroiliac joint injection

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).

Contact a Trial Team

If you are interested in learning more about this trial, find the trial site nearest to your location and contact the site coordinator via email or phone. We also strongly recommend that you consult with your healthcare provider about the trials that may interest you and refer to our terms of service below.

UW Center for Pain Relief, Seattle, Washington

Status

Address

UW Center for Pain Relief

Seattle, Washington, 98105

Site Contact

Jiang Wu, MD

jiangwu@uw.edu

206-221-3686