open access

Vol 80, No 1 (2021)
Original article
Submitted: 2019-07-06
Accepted: 2020-02-25
Published online: 2020-03-18
Get Citation

The variations and degenerative changes of sacroiliac joints in asymptomatic adults

Ö. F. Cihan1, M. Karabulut1, V. Kılınçoğlu2, N. Yavuz3
·
Pubmed: 32207853
·
Folia Morphol 2021;80(1):87-96.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
  2. Department of Orthopedy and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep Universty, Gaziantep, Turkey
  3. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep Universty, Gaziantep, Turkey

open access

Vol 80, No 1 (2021)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Submitted: 2019-07-06
Accepted: 2020-02-25
Published online: 2020-03-18

Abstract

Background: The sacroiliac joint has a structure in which the direction of the load relative to the articular surface is irrational, as the joint surface is not perpendicular to the trunk load axis; it is likely to incur more degenerative changes than other weight-bearing joints.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study consisted of a total of 145 cases — 104 (71.7%) men and 41 (28.3%) women — who were referred to Gaziantep University Medical Faculty Radiology Department Polyclinic for pelvic computed tomography (CT) from 2013 to 2018. The mean age was 33.5 years (range: 18–60 years). Pelvis CT images were performed according to the exclusion criteria specified by the experienced orthopaedic surgeon. Patients were excluded from the study if they were younger than the age of 18, had a condition involving the sacroiliac joint, had an endocrine disorder, or had a history of a trauma affecting the pelvis CT examination.

Results: In this current study, six types of anatomic variations were detected. Iliosacral complex variation has been determined as the most common type of variation. The incidence of variations of sacroiliac joint in all cases was 28.9%. Degenerative changes were seen in 5.5% of patients fewer than 30 years of age. When it comes to the patients whose age range is 30–60, the percentage of the degenerative changes is 12.4%. In patients who were 30 years and older, the prevalence of degenerative changes increased progressively with increasing age.

Conclusions: In this study, it is thought that the knowledge of variations in normal population and degenerative changes will contribute to the better understanding of normal morphological structure of sacroiliac joint and to the anatomical literature. It’s seen that there is not a statistically significant relationship between degenerative changes and anatomical variations.

Abstract

Background: The sacroiliac joint has a structure in which the direction of the load relative to the articular surface is irrational, as the joint surface is not perpendicular to the trunk load axis; it is likely to incur more degenerative changes than other weight-bearing joints.

Materials and methods: This retrospective study consisted of a total of 145 cases — 104 (71.7%) men and 41 (28.3%) women — who were referred to Gaziantep University Medical Faculty Radiology Department Polyclinic for pelvic computed tomography (CT) from 2013 to 2018. The mean age was 33.5 years (range: 18–60 years). Pelvis CT images were performed according to the exclusion criteria specified by the experienced orthopaedic surgeon. Patients were excluded from the study if they were younger than the age of 18, had a condition involving the sacroiliac joint, had an endocrine disorder, or had a history of a trauma affecting the pelvis CT examination.

Results: In this current study, six types of anatomic variations were detected. Iliosacral complex variation has been determined as the most common type of variation. The incidence of variations of sacroiliac joint in all cases was 28.9%. Degenerative changes were seen in 5.5% of patients fewer than 30 years of age. When it comes to the patients whose age range is 30–60, the percentage of the degenerative changes is 12.4%. In patients who were 30 years and older, the prevalence of degenerative changes increased progressively with increasing age.

Conclusions: In this study, it is thought that the knowledge of variations in normal population and degenerative changes will contribute to the better understanding of normal morphological structure of sacroiliac joint and to the anatomical literature. It’s seen that there is not a statistically significant relationship between degenerative changes and anatomical variations.

Get Citation

Keywords

sacroiliac joint, degenerative changes, anatomical variants, accessory joint

About this article
Title

The variations and degenerative changes of sacroiliac joints in asymptomatic adults

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 80, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Original article

Pages

87-96

Published online

2020-03-18

Page views

1778

Article views/downloads

3442

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2020.0032

Pubmed

32207853

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2021;80(1):87-96.

Keywords

sacroiliac joint
degenerative changes
anatomical variants
accessory joint

Authors

Ö. F. Cihan
M. Karabulut
V. Kılınçoğlu
N. Yavuz

References (38)
  1. Asada M, Tokunaga D, Arai Y, et al. Degeneration of the sacroiliac joint in hip osteoarthritis patients: a three-dimensional image analysis. J Belg Soc Radiol. 2019; 103(1): 36.
  2. Bäcklund J, Clewett Dahl E, Skorpil M. Is CT indicated in diagnosing sacroiliac joint degeneration? Clin Radiol. 2017; 72(8): 693.e9–693.e13.
  3. Cohen AS, McNeill JM, Calkins E, et al. The "normal" sacroiliac joint. Analysis of 88 sacroiliac roentgenograms. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1967; 100(3): 559–563.
  4. Demir M, Mavi A, Gümüsburun E, et al. Anatomical variations with joint space measurements on CT. Kobe J Med Sci. 2007; 53(5): 209–217.
  5. Ehara S, el-Khoury GY, Bergman RA. The accessory sacroiliac joint: a common anatomic variant. Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 150(4): 857–859.
  6. Eno JJT, Boone CR, Bellino MJ, et al. The prevalence of sacroiliac joint degeneration in asymptomatic adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(11): 932–936.
  7. Faflia CP, Prassopoulos PK, Daskalogiannaki ME, et al. Variation in the appearance of the normal sacroiliac joint on pelvic CT. Clin Radiol. 1998; 53(10): 742–746.
  8. Fortin JD, Ballard KE. The frequency of accessory sacroiliac joints. Clin Anat. 2009; 22(8): 876–877.
  9. Friedman L, Silberberg PJ, Rainbow A, et al. A limited, low-dose computed tomography protocol to examine the sacroiliac joints. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1993; 44(4): 267–272.
  10. Gilula LA, Murphy WA, Tailor CC, et al. Computed tomography of the osseous pelvis. Radiology. 1979; 132(1): 107–114.
  11. Gohil I, Vilensky JA, Weber EC. Vacuum phenomenon: Clinical relevance. Clin Anat. 2014; 27(3): 455–462.
  12. Grieve EF. Mechanical dysfunction of the sacro-iliac joint. Int Rehabil Med. 1983; 5(1): 46–52.
  13. Ha KY, Lee JS, Kim KW, et al. Degeneration of sacroiliac joint after instrumented lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: a prospective cohort study over five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(11): 1192–1198.
  14. Hadley LA. Accessory sacroiliac articulations with arthritic changes. Radiology. 1950; 55(3): 403–409.
  15. Kanberoglu K, Mihmanli I, Kurugoglu S, et al. Bone marrow changes adjacent to the sacroiliac joints after pelvic radiotherapy mimicking metastases on MRI. Eur Radiol. 2001; 11(9): 1748–1752.
  16. Kibsgård TJ, Røise O, Sturesson B, et al. Radiosteriometric analysis of movement in the sacroiliac joint during a single-leg stance in patients with long-lasting pelvic girdle pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014; 29(4): 406–411.
  17. Kozin F, Carrera GF, Ryan LM, et al. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of sacroiliitis. Arthritis Rheum. 1981; 24(12): 1479–1485.
  18. Lawson TL, Foley WD, Carrera GF, et al. The sacroiliac joints: anatomic, plain roentgenographic, and computed tomographic analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1982; 6(2): 307–314.
  19. Lee D. The Pelvic Girdle. Churchill Livingstone. Longman Group, New York 1989.
  20. Polly DW. The Sacroiliac Joint. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017; 28(3): 301–312.
  21. Postacchini R, Trasimeni G, Ripani F, et al. Morphometric anatomical and CT study of the human adult sacroiliac region. Surg Radiol Anat. 2017; 39(1): 85–94.
  22. Prassopoulos PK, Faflia CP, Voloudaki AE, et al. Sacroiliac joints: anatomical variants on CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999; 23(2): 323–327.
  23. Rana SH, Farjoodi P, Haloman S, et al. Anatomic evaluation of the sacroiliac joint: a radiographic study with implications for procedures. Pain Physician. 2015; 18(6): 583–592.
  24. Rebello da Veiga T, Custódio da Silva A, Gomes da Silva RT, et al. Intra-observer reliability in three-dimensional kinematic analysis of sacroiliac joint mobility. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015; 27(4): 1001–1004.
  25. Resnick D, Niwayama G, Goergen TG. Comparison of radiographic abnormalities of the sacroiliac joint in degenerative disease and ankylosing spondylitis. Am J Roentgenol. 1977; 128(2): 189–196.
  26. Resnick D, Niwayama G, Goergen TG, et al. Degenerative disease of the sacroiliac joint. Invest Radiol. 1975; 10(6): 608–621.
  27. Shaffrey CI, Smith JS. Stabilization of the sacroiliac joint. Neurosurg Focus. 2013; 35(2 Suppl): Editorial.
  28. Shibata Y, Shirai Y, Miyamoto M. The aging process in the sacroiliac joint: helical computed tomography analysis. J Orthop Sci. 2002; 7(1): 12–18.
  29. Sturesson B, Uden A, Vleeming A. A radiostereometric analysis of movements of the sacroiliac joints during the standing hip flexion test. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(3): 364–368.
  30. Trotter M. Accessory sacroiliac articulations in east african skeletons. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1964; 22(2): 137–141.
  31. Trotter M. Accessory sacro-iliac articulations. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1937; 22(2): 247–261.
  32. Valojerdy MR, Hogg DA. Anatomical note: The occurrence of accessory sacroiliac joints in man. Clin Anat. 1990; 3(4): 257–260.
  33. van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A. Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum. 1984; 27(4): 361–368.
  34. Vleeming A, Van Wingerden JP, Dijkstra PF, et al. Mobility in the sacroiliac joints in the elderly: a kinematic and radiological study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1992; 7(3): 170–176.
  35. Vogler JB, Brown WH, Helms CA, et al. The normal sacroiliac joint: a CT study of asymptomatic patients. Radiology. 1984; 151(2): 433–437.
  36. Walker JM. The sacroiliac joint: a critical review. Phys Ther. 1992; 72(12): 903–916.
  37. Whang P, Cher D, Polly D, et al. Sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs. Non-Surgical management: six-month outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 9: 6.
  38. Yagan R, Khan MA, Marmolya G. Role of abdominal CT, when available in patients' records, in the evaluation of degenerative changes of the sacroiliac joints. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987; 12(10): 1046–1051.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Grupa Via Medica, Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.: +48 58 320 94 94, faks: +48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl