Comparative analysis of the lateral and posterolateral trajectories for fixation of the sacroiliac joint-a cadaveric study

Fixation of the Sacroiliac Joint: A Cadaver-Based Concurrent-Controlled Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Interposition and Posterolateral Transosseous Techniques

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to compare the posterior interposition technique against the posterolateral transosseous technique in the same cadaver specimens.

METHODS

Computer and cadaver models of 2 fixation techniques were developed. The computer model was constructed to analyze bone volume removed during implant placement and the bony surface area available for fusion. The cadaver model included quasi-static multidirectional bending flexibility and dynamic fatigue loading. Relative motions between the sacrum and ilium were measured intact, after joint destabilization, after fixation with direct-posterior and posterolateral techniques, and after 18,500 cycles of fatigue loading. Relative positions between each implant and the sacrum and ilium were measured after fixation and fatigue loading to ascertain the quality of the bone-implant interface. The 2 techniques were randomized to the left and right sacroiliac joints of the same cadavers.

RESULTS

The posterior interposition technique removed less bone volume and facilitated a larger surface area available for bony fusion. Posterior interposition significantly reduced the nutation/counternutation motion of the sacroiliac joint (42% ± 8%) and reduced it more than the posterolateral transosseous technique (14% ± 4%). Upon fatigue loading, the posterior interposition implant maintained the bone-implant interface across all specimens, while the posterolateral transosseous implant migrated or subsided in 20%-50% of specimens.

CONCLUSION

Posterior interposition fixation of the sacroiliac joint reduces joint motion. The amount of fixation from the posterior technique is superior and more durable than the amount of fixation achieved by the posterolateral technique.

Sacroiliac Joint: Function, Pathology, Treatment, and Contribution to Outcomes in Spine and Hip Surgery

➢ Low back pain has a lifetime incidence of up to 84% and represents the leading cause of disability in the United States; 10% to 38% of cases can be attributed to sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction as an important pain generator.➢ Physical examination of the SIJ, including >1 provocation test (due to their moderate sensitivity and specificity) and examination of adjacent joints (hip and lumbar spine) should be routinely performed in all patients presenting with low back, gluteal, and posterior hip pain.➢ Radiographic investigations including radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging with protocols optimized for the visualization of the SIJs may facilitate the diagnosis of common pathologies.➢ Intra-articular injections with anesthetic can be helpful in localizing the source of low back pain. Over-the-counter analgesics, physiotherapy, intra-articular injections, radiofrequency ablation, and surgery are all management options and should be approached from the least invasive to the most invasive to minimize the risks of complications.➢ Lumbar fusion surgery predisposes patients to more rapid SIJ degeneration and can also result in more rapid degenerative changes in the hip joints, especially with SIJ fusion.➢ Hip surgery, including hip arthroplasty and preservation surgery, is not a risk factor for SIJ degeneration, although reduced outcomes following hip surgery can be seen in patients with degenerative SIJ changes.

Sacroiliac joint pain: what treatment and when

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and non-spinal pathologies can cause low back pain. Non-spinal sources of low back pain include the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and the hip. SIJ pain can be treated either conservatively or surgically. Current strategies for managing sacroiliac joint pain are debated, and limited evidence exists.

AREAS COVERED

The present expert opinion updates current evidence on conservative and surgical modalities for SIJ pain.

EXPERT OPINION

Surgical management for SIJ pain is effective. However, it exposes patients to surgery and, therefore, related complications. Conservative management may be implemented in patients with moderate SIJ pain, with less than six months of symptoms, or not eligible for surgery. Several noninvasive modalities are available, mostly centered on intra-articular injections. Corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, and stem cells have only midterm lasting effects, at most for nine months. Radiofrequency ablation is another methodology for pain relief. Both continuous and pulsatile radiofrequency ablation are associated with good outcomes. SIJ fusion can be performed using different techniques; however, a clear recommendation on the most appropriate modality for the management of SIJ pain is still debated.

Elective Spinal Transpedicular Ablation of the Basivertebral Nerve of the Vertebral Segment in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients

BACKGROUND

Ablation of the basivertebral nerve (BVNA) innervating the vertebral endplate has become a standard treatment of vertebrogenic chronic low back pain (CLBP) arising from vertebral endplate damage. BVNA treatment of CLBP in clinical trials was successful and durable for pain relief and return to daily activities. This case review adds new information about older patients with adult degenerative spinal deformity (ASD) and associated comorbidities not previously described in clinical trials.

METHODS

One hundred and eighteen ASD patients with vertebrogenic CLBP in a community practice setting underwent 503 levels of BVNA (average 4.3 levels). Forty-one patients with minimal comorbidities (Group A) were compared to 77 patients with significant comorbidities (Group B). Visual analog scale (VAS 10 cm) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 100-point scale) were obtained before BVNA and at a last follow-up (LFU).

RESULTS

Group A VAS at LFU was an average of 2 cm, a 7 cm improvement. Group B VAS at LFU was 3 cm, a 6 cm improvement. At LFU, Group A ODI mean was 14 points or minimal disability, with a 39-point improvement, and Group B improved 28 points to 29 but remained moderately disabled. At LFU, the lumbar stenosis with laminectomy and BVNA subgroup of 26 had mean VAS 2 cm and ODI 28-point improvement but remained on average 21 points with a final low moderate disability. Eleven laminectomy and BVNA patients had continued posterior column pain related to radiculopathy, and or peripheral neuropathy, and sacroiliac joint pain in 30%. Mobile spondylolisthesis in 21 patients in Group B at LFU had a 6 cm improvement of VAS and 25-point improvement of ODI but remained moderately disabled on ODI. At LFU in group B, there was a 20% incidence of continued stenosis and radiculopathy symptoms. At LFU, Lumbar fusion was recommended in 9. Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) occurred in 9 after BVNA (10%) of Group B. These patients were older (mean 78 years), and all had significant osteoporosis. Eight fractures were within the area of the BVNA, and 1 was an S2 sacral fracture. These VCF patients were treated with vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty and continued preventive care with added teriparatide. At LFU, the VCF subgroup had a modest 6 cm improvement in VAS to 4 cm and continued to have significant severe to moderate disability (Oswestry Disability Index average of 38 points).

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials of BVNA treatment of CLBP found success and durability for pain relief and daily activities. Patients with ASD without comorbidities showed durable pain relief of vertebrogenic CLBP and return of daily activities similar to clinical trials. In those with comorbidities, the result was an improvement in pain and disability that could be diminished by the complications related to the comorbidities. This is new information about BVNA for older patients with spinal deformity and other comorbidities. This study could impact research practice and policy to expand indications of BVNA to patients with adult spinal deformity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This case series represents the only literature regarding patients with adult spinal deformity treated with BVNA. The results were predictable and reproducible. Many patients were satisfied, would have the procedure again and would recommend BVNA to friends and family. This finding should encourage acceptance of patients with ASD for BVNA and, in fact, BVNA should probably be done before any fusion to limit and choose levels for inclusion in fusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Safety and Preliminary Effectiveness of Lateral Transiliac Sacroiliac Joint Fusion by Interventional Pain Physicians: A Retrospective Analysis

Introduction

Minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion has become the mainstay treatment for chronic refractory sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Multiple procedures are now available including transfixing procedures with implants placed in the lateral or posterolateral transiliac trajectories, and intra-articular procedures with devices and/or allograft placed via a dorsal approach. To date, the published literature on the lateral approach has been primarily by surgeons. This retrospective chart review aims to evaluate the safety and preliminary effectiveness when the procedure is performed by physicians trained in interventional pain management.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent lateral SI joint fusion using a lateral transiliac approach between December 2022 and September 2023 by a single physician. Data on demographics, perioperative details, complications, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. The study was reviewed by WCG IRB and received an exemption authorization.

Results

Medical charts were reviewed for the first 49 consecutive cases performed. Mean (SD, range) age was 64 (11, 34-83), BMI was 32.5 (8.4), 59% were female, 35% were smokers, and 82% were on opioids at baseline. Mean (SD) operative time was 40 (11) minutes and all procedures were performed at an ambulatory surgery center under monitored anesthesia care. No device- or procedure-related complications occurred. Mean follow up was 175 days; Mean (SD) baseline reported pain was 9 (1.5) on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. At follow up, 88% of the patients reported ≥50% pain relief. Six patients who reported 0% relief suffer from multiple pain generators and are on long term opioids.

Conclusion

Results of this single center experience support the safety of lateral SI joint fusion using a threaded implant when performed by interventional pain management physicians. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are warranted to validate these findings.

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

Sacroiliac joint stabilization using implants provide better fixation in females compared to males: a finite element analysis

PURPOSE

This study's objective was to assess biomechanical parameters across fused and contralateral sacroiliac joints (SIJs) and implants during all spinal motions for both sexes. Various SIJ implant devices on the market are used in minimally invasive surgeries. These implants are placed across the joint using different surgical approaches. The biomechanical effects of fusion surgical techniques in males and females have not been studied.

METHODS

The validated finite element models of a male, and a female spine-pelvis-femur were unilaterally instrumented across the SIJ using three screws for two SIJ implants, half threaded and fully threaded screws placed laterally and posteriorly to the joint, respectively.

RESULTS

Motion and peak stress data at the SIJs showed that the female model exhibited lower stresses and higher reduction in motion at the contralateral SIJ in all motions than the male model predictions with 84% and 71% reductions in motion and stresses across the SIJ.

CONCLUSION

Implants exhibited higher stresses in the female model compared to the male model. However, chances of SIJ implant failure in the female patients are still minimal, based on the calculated factor of safety which is still very high. Both lateral and posterior surgical approaches were effective in both sexes; however, the lateral approach may provide a better biomechanical response, especially for females. Moreover, implant design characteristics did not make a difference in the implants' biomechanical performance. SIJ stabilization was primarily provided by the implants which were the farthest from the sacrum rotation center.