Pelvic joint fusions in patients with chronic pelvic girdle pain: a 23-year follow-up

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants versus nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint (MISIJ) fusion is a surgical option to relieve SIJ pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare MISIJ fusion with triangular titanium implants (TTI) to nonoperative management of SIJ dysfunction.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included prospective clinical trials that compared MISIJ fusion to nonoperative management in individuals with chronic low back pain attributed to SIJ dysfunction. We evaluated pain on visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 8 articles representing 3 trials that enrolled 423 participants were deemed eligible. There was a significant reduction in pain score with MISIJ fusion compared with nonoperative management (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.03 to -1.39). Similarly, ODI scores (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.81), SF-36 PCS scores (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19), SF-36 MCS scores (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.9), and patient satisfaction (odds ratio 6.87, 95% CI 3.73 to 12.64) were significantly improved with MISIJ fusion. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups with respect to adverse events (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.23).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed that MISIJ fusion with TTI shows a clinically important and statistically significant improvement in pain, disability score, HRQoL, and patient satisfaction with a similar adverse event profile to nonoperative management in patients with chronic low back pain attributed to SIJ dysfunction.

The effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared with sham operation: study protocol of a prospective double-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and purpose - The sacroiliac joint is increasingly recognized as a cause of pain in 15-30% of patients with low back pain. Nonoperative management is not always successful and surgical treatment with fusion of the joint is increasingly recommended. According to the literature, minimally invasive fusion reduces pain and improves function compared with nonoperative treatment. It is, however, unclear to what extent the placebo effect influences these results. Patients and methods - The trial is designed as a prospective multi-center, double-blind, randomized shamsurgery controlled trial with 2 parallel groups. 60 patients with a suspected diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain confirmed with sacroiliac joint injection are included according to the trial inclusion criteria. Patients are randomized with a 1:1 allocation into 2 groups of 30 patients each. The primary end-point is group difference in sacroiliac joint pain intensity on the operated side at 6 months postoperatively, measured by the Numeric Rating Scale. The main objective is to examine whether there is a difference in pain reduction between patients treated with a minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac joint compared with patients undergoing a sham operation. Results - Unblinding occurs after the completed 6-month follow-up. The primary analysis will be performed when all patients have completed 6 months' follow-up. Follow-ups are continued to at least 2 years postoperatively. Data from the different groups will be compared based on the "intention to treat" principle.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2020 Update-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion (for Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain): Coverage Indications, Limitations, and Medical Necessity

The index 2014 International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy Statement-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion-was generated out of necessity to provide an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)-based background and emphasize tools to ensure correct diagnosis. A timely ICD-10-based 2016 update provided a granular threshold selection with improved level of evidence and a more robust and relevant database (Appendix Table A1). As procedures and treatment options have evolved, this 2020 update reviews and analyzes the expanding evidence base and provides guidance relating to differences between the lateral and dorsal surgical procedures for minimally invasive surgical sacroiliac joint fusion.

Pelvic Girdle Pain, Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder and Hypermobility-Type Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: A Narrative Literature Review

Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) refers specifically to musculoskeletal pain localised to the pelvic ring and can be present at its anterior and/or posterior aspects. Causes such as trauma, infection and pregnancy have been well-established, while patients with hypermobile joints are at greater risk of developing PGP. Research exploring this association is limited and of varying quality. In the present study we report on the incidence, pathophysiology, diagnostic and treatment modalities for PGP in patients suffering from Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder (HSD) and Hypermobility-Type Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS). Recommendations are made for clinical practice by elaborating on screening, diagnosis and management of such patients to provide a holistic approach to their care. It appears that this cohort of patients are at greater risk particularly of mental health issues. Moreover over, they may require a multidisciplinary approach for their management. Ongoing research is still required to expand our understanding of the relationship between PGP, HSD and hEDS by appropriately diagnosing patients using the latest updated terminologies and by conducting randomised control trials to compare outcomes of interventions using standardised patient reported outcome measures.

iFuse Implant System for Treating Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Treatment and management of sacroiliac joint pain is often non-surgical, involving packages of care that can include analgesics, physiotherapy, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency ablation. Surgical intervention is considered when patients no longer respond to conservative management. The iFuse Implant System is placed across the sacroiliac joint using minimally invasive surgery, stabilising the joint and correcting any misalignment or weakness that can cause chronic pain. The iFuse system was evaluated in 2018 by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP). Clinical evidence for iFuse suggests improved pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and quality of life compared to non-surgical management. The company (SI-Bone^®) submitted two cost models indicating that iFuse was cost saving compared with open surgery and non-surgical management. Clinicians advised that non-surgical management was the most appropriate comparator and Cedar (a health technology research centre) made changes to the model to test the impact of higher acquisition and procedure costs. Cedar found iFuse to be cost incurring by approximately £560 per patient at 7 years. During the consultation period, the company reduced the cost of some iFuse consumables, and Cedar extended the time horizon to test the assumption that iFuse would become cost saving over time. These changes indicated that iFuse becomes cost saving at 8 years (approximately £129 per patient), after which the cost saving continues to increase. NICE published guidance in October 2018 recommending that the case for adoption of the iFuse system in the UK National Health Service (NHS) was supported by the evidence.

Clinical outcome following anterior arthrodesis in patients with presumed sacroiliac joint pain

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that in 13-32% of patients with chronic low back pain, the pain may originate in the sacroiliac (SI) joints. When treatment of these patients with analgesics and physiotherapy has failed, a surgical solution may be discussed. Results of such surgery are often based on small series, retrospective analyses or studies using a minimal invasive technique, frequently sponsored by manufacturers.

PURPOSE

To report the clinical outcome concerning pain, function and quality of life following anterior arthrodesis in patients presumed to have SI joint pain using validated questionnaires pre- and post-operatively. An additional aim was to describe the symptoms of the patients included and the preoperative investigations performed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6 year period we treated 55 patients, all women, with a mean age of 45 years (range 28-65) and a mean pelvic pain duration of 9.1 years (range 2-30). The pain started in connection with minor trauma in seven patients, pregnancy in 20 and unspecified in 28. All patients had undergone long periods of treatment including physiotherapy, manipulation, needling, pelvic belt, massage and chiropractic without success, and 15 had been operated for various spinal diagnoses without improvement. The patients underwent thorough neurological investigation, plain X-ray and MRI of the spine and plain X-ray of the pelvis. They were investigated by seven clinical tests aimed at indicating pain from the SI joints. In addition, all patients underwent a percutaneous mechanical provocation test and extra-articular local anaesthetic blocks against the posterior part of the SI joints. Before surgery all patients answered the generic Short-Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, the disease specific Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders (BIS) questionnaire and rated their level of pelvic and leg pain (VAS, 0-100). At follow-up at a mean of 2 years 49 patients completed the same questionnaires (89%).

RESULTS

At follow-up 26 patients reported a lower level of pelvic pain than before surgery, 16 the same level and six a higher level. Applying Svensson's method RP_{pelvic pain}=0.3976, with 95% CI (0.2211, 0.5740) revealed a statistically significant systematic improvement in pelvic pain. At follow-up 28 patients reported a higher quality of life and 26 reported sleeping better than pre-operatively. In most patients the character of the pelvic pain was dull and aching, often accompanied by a stabbing component in connection with sudden movements. Referred pain down the leg/s even to the feet and toes was noted by half of the patients and 29 experienced frequency of micturition.

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent that in some patients the SI joints may cause long-term pain that can be treated by arthrodesis. We speculate that continued pain despite a healed arthrodesis may be due to persistent pain from adjacent ligaments. The next step should be a prospective randomized study comparing posterior fusion and ligament resection with non-surgical treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

Anterior arthrodesis can apparently relieve pain in some patients with presumed SI joint pain. The problem is how to identify these patients within the low back pain group.

Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management

PURPOSE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) using triangular titanium implants vs conservative management (CM) in patients with chronic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain.

METHODS

103 adults with chronic SIJ pain at nine sites in four European countries were randomly assigned to and underwent either minimally invasive SIJF using triangular titanium implants (N = 52) or CM (N = 51). CM was performed according to the European guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pelvic girdle pain and consisted of optimization of medical therapy, individualized physical therapy (PT) and adequate information and reassurance as part of a multifactorial treatment. The primary outcome was the difference in change in self-rated low back pain (LBP) at 6 months. Additional endpoints included quality of life using EQ-5D-3L, disability using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SIJ function using active straight leg raise (ASLR) test and adverse events. NCT01741025.

RESULTS

At 6 months, mean LBP improved by 43.3 points in the SIJF group and 5.7 points in the CM group (difference of 38.1 points, p < 0.0001). Mean ODI improved by 26 points in the SIJF group and 6 points in the CM group (p < 0.0001). ASLR, EQ-5D-3L, walking distance and satisfaction were statistically superior in the SIJF group. The frequency of adverse events did not differ between groups. One case of postoperative nerve impingement occurred in the surgical group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic SIJ pain, minimally invasive SIJF using triangular titanium implants was safe and more effective than CM in relieving pain, reducing disability, improving patient function and quality of life.

Triangular Titanium Implants for Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Prospective Study

Study Design Prospective multicenter single-arm interventional clinical trial. Objective To determine the degree of improvement in sacroiliac (SI) joint pain, disability related to SI joint pain, and quality of life in patients with SI joint dysfunction who undergo minimally invasive SI joint fusion using triangular-shaped titanium implants. Methods Subjects (n = 172) underwent minimally invasive SI joint fusion between August 2012 and January 2014 and completed structured assessments preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, including a 100-mm SI joint and back pain visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and EuroQOL-5D. Patient satisfaction with surgery was assessed at 6 and 12 months. Results Mean SI joint pain improved from 79.8 at baseline to 30.0 and 30.4 at 6 and 12 months, respectively (mean improvements of 49.9 and 49.1 points, p < 0.0001 each). Mean ODI improved from 55.2 at baseline to 32.5 and 31.4 at 6 and 12 months (improvements of 22.7 and 23.9 points, p < 0.0001 each). SF-36 physical component summary improved from 31.7 at baseline to 40.2 and 40.3 at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.0001). At 6 and 12 months, 93 and 87% of subjects, respectively, were somewhat or very satisfied and 92 and 91%, respectively, would have the procedure again. Conclusions Minimally invasive SI joint fusion resulted in improvement of pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with SI joint dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis and SI joint disruption.

Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and surgical intervention for treating SIJ pain or dysfunction has been a topic of much debate in recent years. There has been a resurgence in the implication of this joint as the pain generator for many patients experiencing low-back pain, and new surgical methods are gaining popularity within both the orthopedic and neurosurgical fields. There is no universally accepted gold standard for diagnosing or surgically treating SIJ pain. The authors systematically reviewed studies on SIJ fusion in the neurosurgical and orthopedic literature to investigate whether sufficient evidence exists to support its use.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and OvidSP-Wolters Kluwer Health for all articles regarding SIJ fusion published from 2000 to 2014. Original, peer-reviewed, prospective or retrospective scientific papers with at least 2 patients were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included follow-up shorter than 1-year, nonsurgical treatment, inadequate clinical data as determined by 2 independent reviewers, non-English manuscripts, and nonhuman subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 16 peer-reviewed journal articles met the inclusion criteria: 5 consecutive case series, 8 retrospective studies, and 3 prospective cohort studies. A total of 430 patients were included, of whom 131 underwent open surgery and 299 underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for SIJ fusion. The mean duration of follow-up was 60 months for open surgery and 21 months for MIS. SIJ degeneration/arthrosis was the most common pathology among patients undergoing surgical intervention (present in 257 patients [59.8%]), followed by SIJ dysfunction (79 [18.4%]), postpartum instability (31 [7.2%]), posttraumatic (28 [6.5%]), idiopathic (25 [5.8%]), pathological fractures (6 [1.4%]), and HLA-B27+/rheumatoid arthritis (4 [0.9%]). Radiographically confirmed fusion rates were 20%-90% for open surgery and 13%-100% for MIS. Rates of excellent satisfaction, determined by pain reduction, function, and quality of life, ranged from 18% to 100% with a mean of 54% in open surgical cases. For MIS patients, excellent outcome, judged by patients' stated satisfaction with the surgery, ranged from 56% to 100% (mean 84%). The reoperation rate after open surgery ranged from 0% to 65% (mean 15%). Reoperation rate after MIS ranged from 0% to 17% (mean 6%). Major complication rates ranged from 5% to 20%, with 1 study that addressed safety reporting a 56% adverse event rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical intervention for SIJ pain is beneficial in a subset of patients. However, with the difficulty in accurate diagnosis and evidence for the efficacy of SIJ fusion itself lacking, serious consideration of the cause of pain and alternative treatments should be given before performing the operation.

Pelvic belt effects on pelvic morphometry, muscle activity and body balance in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction

Introduction

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is frequently involved in low back and pelvic girdle pain. However, morphometrical and functional characteristics related to SIJ pain are poorly defined. Pelvic belts represent one treatment option, but evidence still lacks as to their pain-reducing effects and the mechanisms involved. Addressing these two issues, this case-controlled study compares morphometric, functional and clinical data in SIJ patients and healthy controls and evaluates the effects of short-term pelvic belt application.

Methods

Morphometric and functional data pertaining to pelvic belt effects were compared in 17 SIJ patients and 17 controls. Lumbar spine and pelvis morphometries were obtained from 3T magnetic resonance imaging. Functional electromyography data of pelvis and leg muscles and center of pressure excursions were measured in one-leg stance. The numerical rating scale was used to evaluate immediate pain-reducing effects.

Results

Pelvic morphometry was largely unaltered in SIJ patients and also by pelvic belt application. The angle of lumbar lateral flexion was significantly larger in SIJ patients without belt application. Muscle activity and center of pressure were unaffected by SIJ pain or by belt application in one-leg stance. Nine of 17 patients reported decreased pain intensities under moderate belt application, four reported no change and four reported increased pain intensity. For the entire population investigated here, this qualitative description was not confirmed on a statistical significant level.

Discussion

Minute changes were observed in the alignment of the lumbar spine in the frontal plane in SIJ patients. The potential pain-decreasing effects of pelvic belts could not be attributed to altered muscle activity, pelvic morphometry or body balance in a static short-term application. Long-term belt effects will therefore be of prospective interest.

Minimally invasive versus open sacroiliac joint fusion: are they similarly safe and effective?

BACKGROUND

The sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of chronic low back pain in 15% to 30% of patients. When nonsurgical approaches fail, sacroiliac joint fusion may be recommended. Advances in intraoperative image guidance have assisted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques using ingrowth-coated fusion rods; however, how these techniques perform relative to open anterior fusion of the sacroiliac joint using plates and screws is not known.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We compared estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between patients undergoing MIS and open sacroiliac joint fusion.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 63 patients (open: 36; MIS: 27) who underwent sacroiliac joint fusion with minimum 1-year followup at our institution from 2006 to 2011. Of those, 10 in the open group had incomplete records. All patients had sacroiliac joint dysfunction confirmed by image-guided intraarticular anesthetic sacroiliac joint injection and had failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were matched via propensity score, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, history of spine fusion, and preoperative ODI scores, leaving 22 in each group. Nine patients were not matched. We reviewed patient medical records to obtain EBL, length of surgery, LOS, and pre- and postoperative ODI scores. Mean followup was 13 months (range, 11-33 months) in the open group and 15 months (range, 12-26 months) in the MIS group.

RESULTS

Patients in the open group had a higher mean EBL (681 mL versus 41 mL, p < 0.001). Mean surgical time and LOS were shorter in the MIS group than in the open group (68 minutes versus 128 minutes and 3.3 days versus 2 days, p < 0.001 for both). With the numbers available, mean postoperative ODI scores were not different between groups (47% versus 54%, p = 0.272).

CONCLUSIONS

EBL, surgery time, and LOS favored the MIS sacroiliac fusion group. With the numbers available, ODI scores were similar between groups, though the study size was relatively small and it is possible that the study was underpowered on this end point. Because the implants used for these procedures make assessment of fusion challenging with available imaging techniques, we do not know how many patients' sacroiliac joints successfully fused, so longer followup and critical evaluation of outcomes scores over time are called for.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology

Introduction

Low back pain is common and treatment costly with substantial lost productivity and lost wages in the working-age population. Chronic low back pain originating in the sacroiliac (SI) joint (15%–30% of cases) is commonly treated with nonoperative care, but new minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options are also effective in treating SI joint disruption. We assessed whether the higher initial MIS SI joint fusion procedure costs were offset by decreased nonoperative care costs from a US commercial payer perspective.

Methods

An economic model compared the costs of treating SI joint disruption with either MIS SI joint fusion or continued nonoperative care. Nonoperative care costs (diagnostic testing, treatment, follow-up, and retail pharmacy pain medication) were from a retrospective study of Truven Health MarketScan^® data. MIS fusion costs were based on the Premier’s Perspective™ Comparative Database and professional fees on 2012 Medicare payment for Current Procedural Terminology code 27280.

Results

The cumulative 3-year (base-case analysis) and 5-year (sensitivity analysis) differentials in commercial insurance payments (cost of nonoperative care minus cost of MIS) were $14,545 and $6,137 per patient, respectively (2012 US dollars). Cost neutrality was achieved at 6 years; MIS costs accrued largely in year 1 whereas nonoperative care costs accrued over time with 92% of up front MIS procedure costs offset by year 5. For patients with lumbar spinal fusion, cost neutrality was achieved in year 1.

Conclusion

Cost offsets from new interventions for chronic conditions such as MIS SI joint fusion accrue over time. Higher initial procedure costs for MIS were largely offset by decreased nonoperative care costs over a 5-year time horizon. Optimizing effective resource use in both nonoperative and operative patients will facilitate cost-effective health care delivery. The impact of SI joint disruption on direct and indirect costs to commercial insurers, health plan beneficiaries, and employers warrants further consideration.

Pelvic joint fusion in patients with severe pelvic girdle pain - a prospective single-subject research design study

BACKGROUND

The fusion of the pelvic joints in patients with severe pelvic girdle pain (PGP) is a controversial and insufficiently studied procedure. The aims of this study were to evaluate physical function and pain after sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion.

METHODS

A single-subject research design study with repeated measurements was conducted; pre-operatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. The outcome measures considered were the Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS), and SF-36. Eight patients with severe PGP received open-accessed unilateral anterior SIJ fusion and fusion of the pubic symphysis.

RESULTS

Seven patients reported positive results from the surgery. At 1 year post-operation, significant (p < 0.001) reductions in ODI (54 to 37) and VAS (82 to 57) were reported. The physical functioning, bodily pain, and social functioning scores in the SF-36 were also improved.

CONCLUSION

Positive and significant changes in disability and pain at 1 year after SIJ fusion were observed. Despite these positive results, open accessed anterior fusion of the SIJ was associated with adverse events and complications such as infection and nerve damage.

Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States Medicare population: potential economic implications of a new minimally-invasive technology

INTRODUCTION

The economic burden associated with the treatment of low back pain (LBP) in the United States is significant. LBP caused by sacroiliac (SI) joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis is most commonly treated with nonoperative care and/or open SI joint surgery. New and effective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) options may offer potential cost savings to Medicare.

METHODS

An economic model was developed to compare the costs of MIS treatment to nonoperative care for the treatment of SI joint disruption in the hospital inpatient setting in the US Medicare population. Lifetime cost savings (2012 US dollars) were estimated from the published literature and claims data. Costs included treatment, follow-up, diagnostic testing, and retail pharmacy pain medication. Costs of SI joint disruption patients managed with nonoperative care were estimated from the 2005-2010 Medicare 5% Standard Analytic Files using primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes 720.2, 724.6, 739.4, 846.9, or 847.3. MIS fusion hospitalization cost was based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payments of $46,700 (with major complications - DRG 459) and $27,800 (without major complications - DRG 460), weighted assuming 3.8% of patients have complications. MIS fusion professional fee was determined from the 2012 Medicare payment for Current Procedural Terminology code 27280, with an 82% fusion success rate and 1.8% revision rate. Outcomes were discounted by 3.0% per annum.

RESULTS

The extrapolated lifetime cost of treating Medicare patients with MIS fusion was $48,185/patient compared to $51,543/patient for nonoperative care, resulting in a $660 million savings to Medicare (196,452 beneficiaries at $3,358 in savings/patient). Including those with ICD-9-CM code 721.3 (lumbosacral spondylosis) increased lifetime cost estimates (up to 478,764 beneficiaries at $8,692 in savings/patient).

CONCLUSION

Treating Medicare beneficiaries with MIS fusion in the hospital inpatient setting could save Medicare $660 million over patients' lifetimes.

Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes

Background

Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the introduction of minimally invasive options. To date there has been no direct comparison between open and MIS SI joint fusion.

Methods

We conducted a multi-center, retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who underwent SI joint fusion using either an open surgical (OS) technique using a combination of screws and cages or a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique with a series of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated triangular implants. Operative measures including surgical operating time, length of hospitalization and estimated blood loss (EBL) were collected along with demographics and medical history, surgical complications, and 12- and 24-month pain scores. Improvements in pain were compared after matching for age and gender and controlling for a history of lumbar spine fusion using repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

Data were available for 263 patients treated by 7 surgeons; 149 patients treated with OS and 114 treated with MIS SI joint fusion. Compared to OS patients, MIS patients were on average 10 years older (mean age 57 vs. 46) and 69% of all patients were female. MIS operative measures of EBL, operating time and length of hospitalization were significantly lower than open surgery (p < 0.001). Pain relief, measured as change from baseline to 12 months in VAS pain rating, was 3.5 points lower in the MIS vs. OS group (-6.2 vs. -2.7 points, p < 0.001). When matched for age, gender and a history of prior lumbar spinal fusion, postoperative pain scores were on average 3.0 points (95% CI 2.1 – 4.0) lower in MIS vs. OS (rANOVA p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this multi-center comparative study, patients who underwent either OS or MIS SI joint fusion showed postoperative improvements in pain score. Compared to OS patients, patients who underwent MIS SI joint fusion had significantly greater pain relief and more favorable perioperative surgical measures.

Analysis of postmarket complaints database for the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System®: a minimally invasive treatment for degenerative sacroiliitis and sacroiliac joint disruption

BACKGROUND

The sacroiliac joint is a common but under-recognized source of low back and gluteal pain. Patients with degenerative sacroiliitis or sacroiliac joint disruption resistant to nonsurgical treatments may undergo open surgery with sacroiliac joint arthrodesis, although outcomes are mixed and risks are significant. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis was developed to minimize the risk of iatrogenic injury and to improve patient outcomes compared with open surgery.

METHODS

Between April 2009 and January 2013, 5319 patients were treated with the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System® for conditions including sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis. A database was prospectively developed to record all complaints reported to the manufacturer in patients treated with the iFuse device. Complaints were collected through spontaneous reporting mechanisms in support of ongoing mandatory postmarket surveillance efforts.

RESULTS

Complaints were reported in 204 (3.8%) patients treated with the iFuse system. Pain was the most commonly reported clinical complaint (n = 119, 2.2%), with nerve impingement (n = 48, 0.9%) and recurrent sacroiliac joint pain (n = 43, 0.8%) most frequently cited. All other clinical complaints were rare (≤0.2%). Ninety-six revision surgeries were performed in 94 (1.8%) patients at a median follow-up of four (range 0-30) months. Revisions were typically performed in the early postoperative period for treatment of a symptomatic malpositioned implant (n = 46, 0.9%) or to correct an improperly sized implant in an asymptomatic patient (n = 10, 0.2%). Revisions in the late postoperative period were performed to treat symptom recurrence (n = 34, 0.6%) or for continued pain of undetermined etiology (n = 6, 0.1%).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of a postmarket product complaints database demonstrates an overall low risk of complaints with the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System in patients with degenerative sacroiliitis or sacroiliac joint disruption.

Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis-MIS Technique with Titanium Implants: Report of the First 50 Patients and Outcomes

This retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients treated by a single orthopedic spine surgeon in private practice was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using a series of triangular, porous plasma spray coated titanium implants.

Medical charts were reviewed for perioperative metrics, complications, pain, quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. All patients were contacted at a 24 months post-op to assess SI joint pain, satisfaction with surgery and work status.

An early and sustained statistically significant improvement in pain function was identified at all post-operative time points (ANOVA, p<0.000). A clinically significant improvement (>2 point change from baseline) was observed in 7 out of 9 domains of daily living. The complication rate was low and more than 80% of patients would have the same surgery again.

MIS SI joint fusion appears to be a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of sacroiliac joint disruption or degenerative sacroiliitis.