[Clinical Trial to Test the iFuse Implant System® in Patients with Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome: One Year Results]

Beyond the pedicle screw-a patent review

PURPOSE

This review provides an overview of the patent literature on posteriorly placed intrapedicular bone anchors. Conventional pedicle screws are the gold standard to create a fixation in the vertebra for spinal fusion surgery but may lack fixation strength, especially in osteoporotic bone. The ageing population demands new bone anchors that have an increased fixation strength, that can be placed safely, and, if necessary, can be removed without damaging the surrounding tissue.

METHODS

The patent search was conducted using a classification search in the Espacenet patent database. Only patents with a Cooperative Patent Classification of A61B17/70 or A61B17/7001 concerning spinal positioners and stabilizers were eligible for inclusion. The search query resulted in the identification of 731 patents. Based on preset inclusion criteria, a total of 56 unique patents on different anchoring methods were included, reviewed and categorized in this study.

RESULTS

Five unique fixation methods were identified; (1) anchors that use threading, (2) anchors that utilize a curved path through the vertebra, (3) anchors that (partly) expand, (4) anchors that use cement and (5) anchors that are designed to initiate bone ingrowth. Of the anchor designs included in this study, eight had a corresponding commercial product, six of which were evaluated in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

This review provides insights into worldwide patented intrapedicular bone anchors that aim to increase the fixation strength compared to the conventional pedicle screw. The identified anchoring methods and their working principles can be used for clinical decision-making and as a source of inspiration when designing novel bone anchors.

Novel Interventional Techniques for Chronic Pain with Minimally Invasive Arthrodesis of the Sacroiliac Joint: (INSITE, iFuse, Tricor, Rialto, and others)

Acute and chronic pain are public health issues that clinicians have been battling for years. Opioid medications have been a treatment option for both chronic and acute pain; however, they can cause unwanted complications and are a major contributor to our present opioid epidemic. The sacroiliac (SI) joint is a common cause of both acute and chronic low back pain. It affects about 15–25% of patients with axial low back pain, and up to 40% of patients with ongoing pain following lumbar fusion. Recent advances in the treatment of SI joint pain have led to the development of a wide variety of SI joint fusion devices. These fusion devices seek to stabilize the joints themselves in order that they become immobile and, in theory, can no longer be a source for pain. This is a minimally invasive procedure aimed to address chronic pain without subjecting patients to lengthy surgery or medications, including opioids with the potential for addiction and abuse. Minimally invasive SI fusion can be performed by a lateral approach (i.e., iFuse, Tricor) or posterior approach (i.e., CornerLoc, LinQ, Rialto). The posterior approach requires the patient to be in the prone position but allows for less disruption of muscles with entry. More data are necessary to determine which fusion system may be best for a particular patient. SI fusion devices are a promising way of treating chronic lower back pain related to the SI joint. This narrative review will discuss various types of SI fusion devices, and their potential use in terms of their safety and efficacy.

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.

Effects on hip stress following sacroiliac joint fixation: A finite element study

For those patients who suffer from low back pain generated by the sacroiliac (SI) joint, fusion of the SI joint has proven to be an effective means of stabilizing it and reducing pain. Though it has shown promise, SI joint fusion raises clinical questions regarding its effect on neighboring joints such as the hip. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine the effects of SI joint fixation on the hip. A finite element spine-sacroiliac-hip (SSIH) model was developed and its functionality was verified against SI joint range of motion (ROM) and hip contact stress, respectively. The intact model was fixed in double leg stance at the distal femora, and loading was applied at the lumbar spine to simulate stance, flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Functionality was confirmed by measuring and comparing SI joint ROM and contact stress and area at the hip with data from the literature. Following verification of the intact SSIH model, both unilateral and bilateral SI joint fixation were modeled; hip contact stress and area were compared to the intact state. Average hip contact stress was ~2 MPa, with most motions resulting in changes less than 5% relative to intact; contact area changed less than 10% for any motion. Clinical significance: these results demonstrated that SI joint fixation with triangular titanium implants imparted little change in stress at the hip, which suggests that the risk of developing adjacent segment disease is likely low. Future clinical studies may be executed to confirm the results of this computational study.