Download The Sacro-Iliac Joint

Cases from the Wards
Maryland ACP 2015
Disclosures- None
20 year-old with Buttock Pain and Fever
Case 1
Case Study of A.H.
• 20 yo white female with no significant pmhx
• 3 weeks before presentation, AH noted fever, nonbloody diarrhea, & abdominal pain that resolved in
48 hrs
• 2 weeks prior to presentation, noted right hip pain
that radiated down the back of her right leg.
Intermittent fevers
– Treated with doxycycline and NSAIDs
• Pain worsened, and she was unable to walk
Case Study of A.H.
• MRI of hips/bone scan performed 10 days
prior to presentation were read as normal
• No recent trauma- Fallen off her horse and on
her buttock multiple times in the past
Case Study
• At time of presentation
– Unable to walk
– Slept only on her left side in a recliner
– Unable to fully extend the right hip
– No recent fever
• Nl fmhx, social hx, developmental hx, and
pmhx. Denied sexual activity
Case Study: PE
• Nl vitals
• Very uncomfortable- 10/10 pain score
• Exam normal but for MSK exam
– Tenderness over the right SI joint
– Tenderness in right groin and upper thigh
– Very limited active right hip flexion with limited
internal/external rotation
– Position of comfort was hip flexion with external rotation
– No signs of enthesitis
What additional labs/diagnostics do
you want?
Who would you consult?
•
•
•
•
•
Oncology
Infectious Disease
Rheumatology
Ortho
No one- I got this!
Case Study: Labs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Normal CBC except Hemoglobin- 10.8 g/dL
Normal CMP, CK, and Aldolase
Rheumatoid factor and Lyme disease serology- negative
HLA-B27 by flow was not present
Serum C3, C4 and complement function- normal
Antinuclear antibody was positive with a 1:80 titer
No GC with multiple swabs
Cultures of blood were negative
• Erythrocyte sedimentation rate- 102 mm/h
• C-reactive protein- 6.4 mg/dL
Case Study: Radiology
• Review of outside films
– Plain film: revealed evidence of widening of right
SI joint with irregularity and sclerosis on the iliac
side
– Bone scan: subtle inc uptake in right SI joint
– MRI: abnl signal in right SI joint and adjacent
sacrum and iliac. Minimal fluid
Diagnostic Procedures
• Culture of stool
• CT guided aspiration of right SI joint with
culture
– Gram stain negative from SI joint aspiration
Helpful Results
• Stool and SI joint fluid grew Salmonella
enterica serotype Montevideo that was pansensitive
The Big Finish
• AH later remembers that the day before her
GE illness, she had baked cookies for her
mother’s birthday with eggs from their farm
and ……………………
• …………… she ate lots of batter!!!!!!!!!!!
Final Diagnosis:
• Salmonella gastroenteritis with hematogenous
spread resulting in Salmonella septic sacroilitis
Reacquaint Ourselves with the SI
Joint
•Joint formed between the auricular surfaces of the sacrum
and the ilium
•The articular surface of each bone is covered with a thin
plate of cartilage in close contact with each other
Sacroiliac Articulation
(articulatio sacroiliaca)

Inferior two-thirds: separated by a space containing
a synovial fluid permitting free motion





Greatest at birth
Decreases from birth to puberty
In women, mobility increases after puberty to peak
around age 25
During pregnancy, relaxin effects on ligaments increases
mobility
Mobility decreases in the 4th and 5th decades and is
absent in the elderly
Vascularization of the SI Joint
• Peaks in 2nd decade of life and declines after
the age of 30
• Originates from the pelvic and paravertebral
venous plexus of Batson
Age Distribution in Decades
Salmonella septic sacroilitis
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Median Age- 16
years old
Mean Age- 18.8
years old
Cases
0-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
> 60
Age Distribution of Pyogenic SI
• Mean age- 22 years, range 1-71 years1
– 166 cases of confirmed pyogenic SI joint infections in
children and adults from 1878-1990 (excluded
mycobacteria and brucella)
• Mean age: 20 years2
– 177 cases from 1990-1996 in the literature
–
1Vyskocil
JJ, McIlroy MA, Brennan TA, Wilson FM. Pyogenic infection of the sacroiliac joint.
Case reports and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). May 1991;70(3):188-197.
– 2Zimmermann B, 3rd, Mikolich DJ, Lally EV. Septic sacroiliitis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. Dec
1996;26(3):592-604.
Symptoms of Salmonella septic sacroilitis
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Buttock Pain
Recent Gait
Disorder
Unilateral
Pain
Fever
Risk Factors for Salmonella septic sacroilitis
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Recalled GI
Illness
Egg Nog
Ingestion
Trauma
Immunocompromised
Lack of Risk Factors other than Age
•
•
•
•
•
No IVDU
No Sickle Cell Disease
No Corticosteroid Treatment
No SLE
No GU infections
Delay in Diagnosis of Pyogenic SI
•
•
•
•
Lack of awareness of the entity
Nonspecific presentation of the illness
Posteriorly situated physical findings
Referred pain makes other more common
diagnoses seem more likely
– Appendicitis
– Septic Hip
– Lumbar Disc disease
•Gordon G, Kabins SA. Pyogenic sacroiliitis. Am J Med. Jul 1980;69(1):50-56.
SI Joint Afflictions
• Septic Arthritis
• Inflammatory disorders like
the seronegative
spondyloarthropathies
• Crystal arthropathies- gout,
pseudogout
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Familial Mediterranean
Fever
• Hyperparathyroidism
• Behcet’s disease
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relapsing polychondritis
Whipple’s disease
Trauma
Metastatic lesions or
sarcoma
Degenerative lesions
Osteitis condensans ilii
Radiation therapy
Immobilization
Sarcoid?
Delay in treatment of Salmonella SI
• > 80% Gram-positives
– Staph Aureus by far most common at 70%
– 2nd most common- Streptococcal species
• 9 % of all cases
• 21% of strep cases associated w/ gyn conditions
• 6 caused by GBS
• 17% Gram-negative infections
– Pseudomonas most common- only IVDUs
– E. coli- 8 cases
• Almost always associated with UTIs
•Zimmermann B 3rd, Mikolich DJ, Lally EV. Septic sacroiliitis. Semin Arthritis Rheum.
1996;26:592– 604.
89-year-old with decreased elimination
Case 2
Case Study 2
• An 89-year-old woman with untreated stage 0 CLL and a
history of stage III colorectal cancer
– treated with hemicolectomy and adjuvant capecitabine 3 years
prior
• Reported feeling “dehydrated,” nauseated, and
constipated, with decreased output from her colostomy.
• No urine output for 4 days
– felt that she had to urinate, “but I can’t.”
• Decrease in fluid intake.
• Denied fevers, chills, abdominal pain, or loss of appetite.
• While waiting to be seen in the emergency department, the
patient was finally able to urinate.
PMH
• Colon cancer with no evidence of recurrence
– Normal postoperative PET three years prior
– Normal colonoscopy one year prior
– Normal surveillance CT one year prior
• Other history
–
–
–
–
–
Well controlled hypertension
Well controlled hypothyroidism
Well controlled hyperlipidemia
Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy
Anxiety
Medications
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
buspirone 5 mg 3 times a day
metoprolol 25 mg twice a day
lisinopril/hydrochlorathiazide 20/25 twice daily
pantoprazole 40 mg once daily
levothyroxine 100 mcg once daily
gabapentin 300 mg twice a day
solifenacin 5 mg once daily (started 10 days prior
to her admission) for bladder overactivity
• fenofibrate 145 mg nightly
Physical Exam
• Appeared non-toxic
• Abdomen:
• hypoactive bowel sounds and mild diffuse
abdominal tenderness
• No peritoneal signs
• Foley placed with PVR of 50cc
2 months
before
admission
Sodium (mEq/L)
143
137
Potassium (mEq/L)
4.5
5.2
Chloride (mEq/L)
102
99
CO2 (mEq/L)
27
22
BUN (mg/dL)
18
90
Creatinine (mg/dL)
0.8
3.4
WBC Count/cu mm
19740
28720
1.76
1.64
TSH (uIU/mL)
Small Bowel Obstruction
What is causing her SBO?
Do you send her to surgery?
Hospital Course
 With cessation of solifenacin and
lisinopril/HCTZ and hydration, her
constipation, acute renal failure, and feeling of
urinary retention resolved
 After 4 days, she tolerated a diet, and her
colostomy output normalized
 After eight months, her creatinine and
abdominal CT were normal
2 months
before
admission
3 months after
Sodium (mEq/L)
143
137
143
Potassium (mEq/L)
4.5
5.2
3.9
Chloride (mEq/L)
102
99
106
CO2 (mEq/L)
27
22
28
BUN (mg/dL)
18
90
18
Creatinine (mg/dL)
0.8
3.4
0.9
WBC Count/cu mm
19740
28720
17750
1.76
1.64
TSH (uIU/mL)
Final Diagnosis
• Small bowel pseudo-obstruction and the
feeling of urinary retention associated with
solifenacin, an antimuscarinic
Safety Analysis of Solifenacin
Randomized Placebo Controlled Double-Blinded Studies
Number of Patients in
Safety Analysis
placebo
5mg
10mg
Constipation
Number of patients
(percentage)
placebo
5mg
10mg
Micturition/24 hours
Baseline
Mean Decrease from
Baseline
placebo
5mg
10mg
Chapple6*^†
267
279
268
5 (1.9)
20 (7.2)
21 (7.8)
12.08 - 12.32
1.2
2.19
2.61
Cardozo5*^†
301
299
307
6 (2.0)
11 (3.7)
28 (9.1)
12.05 - 12.31
1.59
2.37
2.81
Wagg4•
422
192
431
18 (4.3)
18 (9.4)
78 (18.1)
11.6 - 11.7
1.1
2.0
2.5
*Trials were 12 weeks and did not utilize an intention to treat analysis
^ Inclusion criteria: men and women aged ≥ 18 years, symptoms of overactive bladder syndrome for ≥ 3 months, average frequency of ≥ 8 voids/24h
† Exclusion criteria included significant bladder outlet obstruction, postvoid residual > 200mL, presence of a neurological cause for detrusor muscle
overactivity, any medical condition contraindicating the use of antimuscarinic medication, diabetic neuropathy, and use of any drugs with cholinergic or
anticholinergic side-effects
• Pooled analysis of patients ≥ 65 years old in Chapple6, Cardozo5, and 2 unpublishedstudies2
urgency episodes/24 hours
micturitions/24 h
urge incontinence episodes/24 h
Int Urogynecol J (2012) 23:983–991
Discussion
• Prior to 2008, in 4 randomized trials, only 189 patients of the 1811 who
received active drug were > 75 years.
• In the four 12-week clinical trials in which 1158 patients were treated with
solifenacin 10mg, there were 3 serious intestinal adverse events: fecal
impaction, colonic obstruction, and intestinal obstruction.
• Patients receiving solifenacin were more likely to experience constipation
than those given placebo
• 5mg- 5.4%
• 10mg- 13.4%
• Placebo- 2.9%
• In patients who urinated an average of 11.6-12.32 times per 24 hours,
efficacy trials showed a mean decrease from baseline of 1.1-1.59 times
with placebo as compared to 2.0-2.81 times with solifenacin.
Conclusion
• First think drugs
• Solifenacin’s risks likely outweigh its benefits
– Dearth of clinical data on patients > 75 years of age
– Effects of age on the pharmacokinetics
– Higher likelihood of bowel pathology in the elderly
– Increased risk of solifenacin induced side effects in the
pooled analysis of patients ≥ 65 years old
– Minor clinical benefit of solifenacin
55-year-old with right epigastric pain
Case 3
April 30- Urgent Care
• CC: Right epigastric pain in a 55-year-old
• HPI
– Lung pain under right breast
•
•
•
•
Pain improved with rest and sitting up. Almost gone @ rest
Worse with cough
Hurts with deep breathing.
Began 4/19. Left ureteral stent placed on 4/9
– Noted DOE with walking up a flight of stairs
• 4/19-4/23, then resolved
• Started again 4/28
May 1, 2017
47
Case Presentation
• 55 year old
• Pmhx:
– 390 lbs, 6’1’’
– Cystinuria
– HTN
BMI: 53
• Past Surgical Hx
– Recent lithotripsy
– Left ureteral stent for obstruction by stones (4/9)
– Multiple percutaneous nephrostomy procedures x 10yrs
• Medications
– Ace-I
May 1, 2017
48
Physical Exam
• VS
– 155/97, p-122, Temp- 99.1, Sat-92%
• Nothing else obvious on exam
Labs from 3/24
Labs from 4/30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Na- 141
K- 4.7
Cl- 103
CO2- 30
BUN- 17
Cr- 1.4
Gluc- 97
WBC- 9.3
HCT- 47
Plts- 193
Na- 136
K- 5.4
Cl- 104
CO2- 24
BUN- 45
Cr- 5.1
Gluc- 97
Nl LFTs
WBC- 12.5
HCT- 44.5
Plts- 166
50
EKG from 3/29
May 1, 2017
51
V/Q from 4/30
May 1, 2017
52
CT of abd from 4/30
no contrast
• Left sided double-J stent in satisfactory
position
• Moderate left hydronephrosis
• Bilateral renal stones
• Hiatal hernia
• Small pericardial effusion
• Gallstones
What do you think is going on?
1. A
2. B
3. C
A
B
C
D
May 1
• US guided left perc nephrostomy tube
• Left ureteral stent is occluded as is the distal
left ureter on nephrostogram
May 1, 2017
55
5/7
• Sees urologist, but can’t get to the clinic
– Too SOB in the parking
• Direct admission with gen med and renal
consults
May 1, 2017
56
Gen Med Consult
• DOE has worsened but SOB is not present while
sitting
• DOE with brushing teeth and dressing
• No CP, palpitations, lightheadedness, or dizziness
• Good urine output
• Anorexia recently with 20 lb weight loss
• No fevers, chills, sweats, rashes, arthraligias, or
myalgias
• Cause of breathlessness remains a mystery
• Orders echo and stress test
May 1, 2017
57
Labs from 5/7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Na- 141
K- 4.3
Cl- 105
CO2- 27
BUN- 23
Cr- 1.8
Nl LFTs
• WBC- 14
• HCT- 46.8
• Plts- 215
58
CXR
May 1, 2017
59
EKG from 5/7
May 1, 2017
60
What do you think is going on?
1. A
2. B
3. C
A
B
C
D
Echo from 5/7
May 1, 2017
62
Pre-Test Probability
• Gestalt (experience)
– History of Present Illness
– Risk Factors
– Physical exam
• Clinical Prediction Models
May 1, 2017
63
Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging:
management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a
simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. Jul 17 2001;135(2):98-107.
May 1, 2017
64
10%
low
May 1, 2017
30%
70%
intermediate high
Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article
about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Jama. Mar 2 1994;271(9):703-707.
65
Likelihood Ratios
•
•
•
•
Derived from sensitivity and specificity
It is a multiplication factor
(Pre-test odds)(LR)= post-test odds
We convert odds to percentages or use the
Bayes’ Nomogram
May 1, 2017
66
When are Likelihood Ratios
Helpful?
• LRs >10 or < 0.1
– generate large, and often conclusive changes from pre- to post-test
probability
• LRs of 5-10 and 0.1-0.2
– generate moderate shifts in pre- to post-test probability
• LRs of 2-5 and 0.5-0.2
– generate small (but sometimes important) changes in probability
• LRs of 1-2 and 0.5-1
– alter probability to a small (and rarely important) degree.
• How helpful also depends on your pre-test probability
May 1, 2017
67
May 1, 2017
68
46%
13%
May 1, 2017
69
Conclusion
• Make sure you know the operating
characteristics of the test before deciding on
the post-test probability
• Always think about the pre-test probability
• Combine that with whether the diagnosis is
“high stakes” to decide what needs to happen
to lower the post-test probability to an
appropriate level