Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion secondary to lumbosacral fusion: Clinical and functional results at 2years of follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative sacroiliac (SI) joint syndrome is known to be more common after lumbosacral fusion. While this diagnosis is suspected based on various clinical criteria and diagnostic tests, it is confirmed with a diagnostic nerve block. If conservative treatment fails, SI joint fusion through a minimally invasive approach is a useful palliative approach for patients at a treatment crossroads. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and functional results at 2years postoperative after minimally invasive SI joint fusion in patients with SI joint syndrome following lumbosacral fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a single-center retrospective study of patients operated between June 2017 and October 2020. Included were patients who had a confirmed diagnosis of SI joint syndrome after lumbosacral fusion surgery, who underwent SI joint fusion and had at least 2years' follow-up. The primary outcome was the improvement in lumbar and radicular pain on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The secondary outcomes were the functional scores (Oswestry and SF-12) along with the level of patient satisfaction. Our study population consisted of 54 patients (41 women, 13 men) with a mean age of 59years (27-88). Thirty-one of these patients were operated on both sides (85 fusions in all). The patients had undergone a mean of 3 lumbar surgeries (1-7) before the SI fusion.

RESULTS

The lumbar and radicular NRS were 8.4 (7-10) and 5.1 (2-10) preoperatively and 5.2 (0-8) and 3.0 (0-8) at 2years postoperatively, which was a reduction of 37% and 42% (p<0.001), respectively. The Oswestry score went from 69.4 (52-86) preoperatively to 45.6 (29-70) at 2years, which was a 33% improvement (p<0.001). Eighty-six percent of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the surgery.

DISCUSSION

After minimally invasive SI joint fusion, the patients in this study had clear clinical and functional improvements. Previous publications analyzing the results of SI joint fusion found even more improvement, but those patients were relatively heterogenous; in our study, only patients who had a history of lumbosacral fusion were included.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive SI joint fusion helped patients who developed SI joint syndrome after lumbosacral fusion to improve clinically and functionally.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Utility of minimally invasive percutaneous arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint for the treatment of low back pain: systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The surprising increase observed in recent years in the use of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis techniques as a treatment for low back pain justifies an objective review of this results.

PURPOSE

carry out a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the clinical results of patients with low back pain treated with percutaneous arthrodesis of the SIJ.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic search of the medical literature. The words used in the Search were: "Hollow screw system", "percutaneous sacroiliac joint stabilization", "sacroiliac joint", "minimally invasive", "sacroiliac pain", "sacroiliac dysfunction". With logical connectors such as "and", "not" and "or".

DATABASES

Pubmed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, EBSCO host and google scholar. The search extended from the beginning of the databases until September 2024. The "Rayyan" program was used to collect the information and facilitate the analysis process.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Systematic review from the literature, clinical trials, observational studies and case series. They followed PRISMA principles.

RESULTS

661 articles were found, of which 108 articles were duplicates. The criteria (Inclusion/Exclusion) were applied to the 553 articles identified based on the independent reading of the summaries by each of the authors on the Rayyan platform and 434 articles were excluded. The 119 selected articles were completely reviewed to finally obtain 102 articles included in the review. Epidemiological data were extracted into an Excel table, methodological and related to clinical results and safety of procedures made. The Prisma checklist for systematic reviews was applied in each article. The epidemiological quality of the articles was evaluated based on the checklists STROBE and CONSORT. The results regarding clinical improvement were overwhelming. However, most of the studies were sponsored by industry and with a limited population and follow-up not always prolonged.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the clinical results regarding the effectiveness of SIJ fusion are forceful for their effectiveness, we recommend considering some aspects for their analysis and especially long-term studies.

Minimally invasive lateral, posterior, and posterolateral sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects of minimally invasive lateral, posterior, and posterolateral sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were comprehensively searched for studies up to 31 August 2024. Relevant studies using lateral, posterior, and posterolateral approaches were identified. Pooled outcomes and publication bias were assessed. The study was registered with PROSPERO (registration No. CRD42023451047).

RESULTS

A total of 48 studies were included: 32 focused on the lateral approach, 10 on the posterior approach, four on the posterolateral approach, and two compared the lateral and posterolateral approaches. The pooled effect analysis showed statistically significant improvements in the visual analog scale (VAS) scores for all three approaches at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Although no between-approach comparisons were conducted, the pooled improvements in VAS scores at 6 and 12 months postoperatively were numerically similar across all three approaches, as were the pooled fusion rates. The pooled complication rate for the lateral approach was 9.2%, numerically higher than 1% for the posterior approach. The pooled revision rate for the lateral approach was 2.4%, also numerically higher than 0.6% for the posterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pain relief and fusion rates were similar across all approaches, the lateral approach might be associated with a higher risk of total complications and revision surgery.

Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion is increasingly used to treat chronic SI joint pain. Multiple surgical approaches are now available.

METHODS

Data abstraction and random effects meta-analysis of safety and efficacy outcomes from published patient cohorts. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety measures were stratified by surgical technique: transiliac, including lateral transiliac (LTI) and posterolateral transiliac (PLTI), and posterior interpositional (PI) procedures.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven cohorts of 2851 patients were identified, including 43 cohorts (2126 patients) for LTI, 6 cohorts (228 patients) for PLTI, and 8 cohorts (497 patients) for PI procedures. Randomized trials were only available for LTI. PROs were available for pain (numeric rating scale) in 57 cohorts (2851 patients) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) in 37 cohorts (1978 patients).All studies with PROs showed improvement from baseline after surgery. Meta-analytic improvements in pain scores were highest for LTI (4.8 points [0-10 scale]), slightly lower for PLTI (4.2 points), and lowest for PI procedures (3.8 points, P = 0.1533). Mean improvements in ODI scores were highest for LTI (25.9 points), lowest for PLTI procedures (6.8 points), and intermediate for PI (16.3 points, P = 0.0095).For safety outcomes, acute symptomatic implant malposition was 0.43% for LTI, 0% for PLTI, and 0.2% for PI procedures. Wound infection was reported in 0.15% of LTI, 0% of PLTI, and 0% of PI procedures. Bleeding requiring surgical intervention was reported in 0.04% of LTI procedures and not reported for PLTI or PI. Breakage and migration were not reported for any device. Radiographic imaging evaluation reporting implant placement accuracy and fusion was only available for LTI.

DISCUSSION

Literature support for SI joint fusion is growing. The LTI procedure contains the largest body of available evidence and shows the largest improvements in pain and ODI. Only LTI procedures have independent radiographic evidence of fusion and implant placement. The adverse event rate for all procedures was low.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1

What You Need to Know About Sacroiliac Dysfunction

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and sacroiliac dysfunction is estimated to occur in 15%-30% of those with nonspecific low back pain. Nurses are in the unique position to support and provide education to patients who may be experiencing sacroiliac dysfunction or possibly apply this knowledge to themselves, as low back pain is a significant problem experienced by nurses. A patient's clinical presentation, including pain patterns and characteristics, functional limitations, common etiologies and musculoskeletal system involvement, current diagnostic tools, and realm of treatments, are discussed along with their respective efficacy. Distinction is made between specific diagnosis and treatment of joint involvement and that of sacroiliac regional pain, as well as other factors that play a role in diagnosis and treatment for the reader's consideration.

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain causes significant disability and impairment to quality of life (QOL). Minimally invasive SI joint fusion is increasingly used to relieve chronic SI joint pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the existing literature to assess the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive SI joint fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and a clinical trial registry from database inception to June 30, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible studies were primary research studies published in the English language, enrolled adults with SI joint pain, and compared SI joint fusion to nonsurgical interventions or alternative minimally invasive procedures. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs) that reported effectiveness (pain, physical function, QOL, opioid use) or safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs], revision surgeries) and uncontrolled studies that reported safety outcomes.

DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were abstracted into structured forms; two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias using standard instruments; certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE.

RESULTS

Forty studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCSs, and 35 uncontrolled studies) were included. Minimally invasive SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System appeared to result in larger improvements in pain (two RCTs: mean difference in visual analog scale -40.5 mm, 95% CI, -50.1 to -30.9; -38.1 mm, p<.0001) and larger improvements in physical function (mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index -25.4 points, 95% CI, -32.5 to -18.3; -19.8 points, p<.0001) compared to conservative management at 6 months. Improvements in pain and physical function for the RCTs appeared durable at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Findings were similar in one CCS. The two RCTs also found significant improvements in QOL at 6 months and 1 year. Opioid use may be improved at 6 months and 1 to 2 years. AEs appeared higher in the fusion group at 6 months. The incidence of revision surgery varied by study; the highest was 3.8% at 2 years. Two CCSs compared the effectiveness of alternative minimally invasive fusion procedures. One CCS compared iFuse to the Rialto SI Fusion System and reported no differences in pain, function, QOL, and revision surgeries from 6 months to 1 year. One CCS compared iFuse to percutaneous screw fixation and reported significantly fewer revisions among iFuse participants (mean difference -61.0%, 95% CI, -78.4% to -43.5%). The 35 uncontrolled studies had serious limitations and reported heterogeneous safety outcomes. Two of the larger studies reported a 13.2% incidence of complications from minimally invasive SI joint fusion at 90 days using an insurance claims database and a 3.1% incidence of revision surgery over 2.5 years using a postmarket surveillance database.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients meeting diagnostic criteria for SI joint pain and who have not responded to conservative care, minimally invasive SI joint fusion is probably more effective than conservative management for reducing pain and opioid use and improving physical function and QOL. Fusion with iFuse and Rialto appear to have similar effectiveness. AEs appear to be higher for minimally invasive SI joint fusion than conservative management through 6 months. Based on evidence from uncontrolled studies, serious AEs from minimally invasive SI joint fusion may be higher in usual practice compared to what is reported in trials. The incidence of revision surgery is likely no higher than 3.8% at 2 years. Limited evidence is available that compares different minimally invasive devices.