In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel, Minimally Invasive, Sacroiliac Joint Fixation Device

Sacroiliac Joint Ankylosis in Pelvic Ring Injuries with Posterior Ilium Fractures

Purpose

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) changes due to ankylosis may influence the fracture pattern of the posterior ilium, an essential component of the posterior ring. This study aimed to assess the association between SIJ ankylosis and posterior ilium fractures (PL) in pelvic ring injuries.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 272 patients diagnosed with pelvic ring injuries between January 2004 and October 2023. Patients were categorized into non-ankylosed (n=185) and ankylosed (n=87) SIJ cohorts. The prevalence of SIJ ankylosis in our study sample was 32.0% (87/272). Patient demographics, SIJ ankylosis, PL, and fracture classification using computed tomography were compared between the two groups. PL was defined as any type of posterior ring injury with fracture lines extending to the region posterior to the iliac pillar, with or without SIJ subluxation or dislocation. To determine the association between SIJ ankylosis and PL, a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, and energy of injury mechanism was performed.

Results

Our results found that the ankylosed group had a higher PL ratio (47.1% vs. 31.4%, P=0.012), was older (64.9 years vs. 53.5 years, P<0.001), and included more males (58.6% vs. 37.8%, P=0.001) than the non-ankylosed group. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between SIJ ankylosis and PL (odds ratio 2.15, P=0.022).

Conclusion

This study determined that SIJ ankylosis is significantly associated with PL in pelvic ring injuries; transformed SIJ may contribute to changes in posterior ring fracture patterns.

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.

Acetabular fracture pattern is altered by pre-injury sacroiliac joint autofusion

PURPOSE

Acetabular fracture shape is determined by the direction of force applied. We perceive an anecdotally observed connection between pre-existing autofused sacroiliac joints (aSIJ) and high anterior column (HAC) injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare variations in acetabular fracture patterns sustained in patients with and without pre-injury sacroiliac (SI) joint autofusion.

METHODS

All adult patients receiving unilateral acetabular fixation (level 1 academic trauma; 2008-2018) were reviewed. Injury radiographs and CT scans were reviewed for fracture patterns and pre-existing aSIJ. Fracture types were subgrouped presence of HAC injury (includes anterior column (AC), anterior column posterior hemitransverse (ACPHT), or associated both column (ABC)).

ANALYSIS

Logistic regression determined the association between aSIJ and HAC.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients received unilateral acetabular fixation (2008-2018); 61 (16%) demonstrated CT evidence of idiopathic aSIJ. These patients were older (64.1 vs. 47.4, p < 0.01), more likely to be male (95% vs. 71%, p < 0.01), less likely to be smokers (19.0% vs. 44.8%, p < 0.01), and were injured from lower energy mechanisms (21.3% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.01). The most common patterns with autofusion were ACPHT (n = 13, 21%) and ABC (n = 25, 41%). Autofusion was associated with greater odds of patterns involving a high anterior column injury (ABC, ACPHT, or isolated anterior column; OR = 4.97, p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, mechanism, and body mass index, the connection between autofusion and high anterior column injuries remained significant (OR = 2.60, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

SI joint autofusion appears to change mode of failure in acetabular injuries; a more rigid posterior ring may precipitate a high anterior column injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic level III.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Computed Tomography Review After Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint With Aggressive Joint Decortication and Joint Compression

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common, underrecognized source of low back pain. We evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) using a novel, minimally invasive SIJF system emphasizing compressive forces across an aggressively debrided SIJ. We retrospectively reviewed data from a continuous set of patients presenting to a large, tertiary care hospital from September 2017 to August 2019. All patients received the novel SIJF device. Outcomes were assessed at 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, plus radiographic evaluation of fusion status. Data from 75 patients were analyzed. At 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, the ODI score improved by 10.5 points (P=.002), 17.4 points (P<.0001), and 23.6 points (P<.0001), respectively, while the NRS score improved by 4.6 points (P<.0001), 4.4 points (P<.0001), and 4.6 points (P<.0001), respectively. SANE scores indicated high levels of patient satisfaction (81.0%, 92.18%, and 89.2%, respectively). PROMIS physical function scores improved by 2.65 points, 3.30 points, and 3.63 points, respectively, while PROMIS mental health scores showed changes of -1.93 points, 1.57 points, and -0.47 points, respectively. A review of computed tomography scans demonstrated grade 3 fusion (complete) in 81% of cases at a mean of 371 days postoperatively. There was one revision case for a malpositioned implant. The use of a novel SIJF device emphasizing compressive forces provided early, durable improvements in patient-reported outcomes and extremely high patient satisfaction. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):101-107.].

Posterior intra-articular fixation stabilizes both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints: a cadaveric study and comparison to lateral trans-articular fixation literature

BACKGROUND

Posterior and lateral techniques have been described as approaches to sacroiliac joint arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the stabilizing effects of a novel posterior stabilization implant and technique to a previously published lateral approach in a cadaveric multidirectional bending model. We hypothesized that both approaches would have an equivalent stabilizing effect in flexion-extension and that the posterior approach would exhibit better performance in lateral bending and axial rotation. We further hypothesized that unilateral and bilateral posterior fixation would stabilize both the primary and secondary joints.

METHODS

Ranges of motion (RoMs) of six cadaveric sacroiliac joints were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 N-m applied moment in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions.

RESULTS

Intact RoMs were equivalent between both samples. For the posterior intra-articular technique, unilateral fixation reduced the RoMs of both primary and secondary joints in all loading planes (flexion-extension RoM by 45%, lateral bending RoM by 47%, and axial RoM by 33%), and bilateral fixation maintained this stabilizing effect in both joints (flexion-extension at 48%, lateral bending at 53%, and axial rotation at 42%). For the lateral trans-articular technique, only bilateral fixation reduced mean RoM of both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints, and only under flexion-extension loads (60%).

CONCLUSION

During flexion-extension, the posterior approach is equivalent to the lateral approach, while producing superior stabilization during lateral bend and axial rotation.

Biomechanical evaluation of multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct for the augmentation of lumbosacral junction in long spinal fusion surgery

Background: Posterior long spinal fusion was the common procedure for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Although the application of sacropelvic fixation (SPF), the incidence of pseudoarthrosis and implant failure is still high in long spinal fusion extending to lumbosacral junction (LSJ). To address these mechanical complications, advanced SPF technique by multiple pelvic screws or multirod construct has been recommended. This was the first study to compare the biomechanical performance of combining multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct to other advanced SPF constructs for the augmentation of LSJ in long spinal fusion surgery through finite element (FE) analysis.

Methods: An intact lumbopelvic FE model based on computed tomography images of a healthy adult male volunteer was constructed and validated. The intact model was modified to develop five instrumented models, all of which had bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation from L1 to S1 with posterior lumbar interbody fusion and different SPF constructs, including No-SPF, bilateral single S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw and single rod (SS-SR), bilateral multiple S2AI screws and single rod (MS-SR), bilateral single S2AI screw and multiple rods (SS-MR), and bilateral multiple S2AI screws and multiple rods (MS-MR). The range of motion (ROM) and stress on instrumentation, cages, sacrum, and S1 superior endplate (SEP) in flexion (FL), extension (EX), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) were compared among models.

Results: Compared with intact model and No-SPF, the ROM of global lumbopelvis, LSJ, and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) was decreased in SS-SR, MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR in all directions. Compared with SS-SR, the ROM of global lumbopelvis and LSJ of MS-SR, SS-MR, and MS-MR further decreased, while the ROM of SIJ was only decreased in MS-SR and MS-MR. The stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum decreased in SS-SR, compared with no-SPF. Compared with SS-SR, the stress in EX and AR further decreased in SS-MR and MS-SR. The most significantly decreased ROM and stress were observed in MS-MR.

Conclusion: Both multiple pelvic screws and multirod construct could increase the mechanical stability of LSJ and reduce stress on instrumentation, cages, S1-SEP, and sacrum. The MS-MR construct was the most adequate to reduce the risk of lumbosacral pseudarthrosis, implant failure, and sacrum fracture. This study may provide surgeons with important evidence for the application of MS-MR construct in the clinical settings.

Minimally Invasive and Conservative Interventions for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Review of Recent Literature

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is responsible for approximately 15-25% of reported back pain. Patients with SIJ pain report some of the lowest quality of life scores of any chronic disease. Understanding of the physiology and pathology of the SI joint has changed dramatically over the years, and SI joint pain and injury can now be thought of in two broad categories: traumatic and atraumatic. Both categories of SI joint injury are thought to be caused by inflammation or injury of the joint capsule, ligaments, or subchondral bone in the SI joint. Treatment of SI joint pain usually involves a multi-pronged approach, utilizing both, multi-modal medical pain control and interventional pain/surgical techniques such as steroid injections, radiofrequency nerve ablation, and minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis. Though conservative management through multi-modal pain control and physical therapy have their role as first line therapies, an increasing body of evidence supports the use of minimally invasive procedures, both as adjuvant treatments to conservative management and as second line therapies for patient's that fail first line treatment.

Minimally Invasive and Conservative Interventions for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Review of Recent Literature

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is responsible for approximately a third of reported back pain. Patients with SIJ pain report some of the lowest quality of life scores of any chronic disease. Understanding of the physiology and pathology of the SI joint has changed dramatically over the years, and SI joint pain and injury can now be thought of in two broad categories: traumatic and atraumatic. Both categories of SI joint injury are thought to be caused by inflammation or injury of the joint capsule, ligaments, or subchondral bone in the SI joint. Treatment of SI joint pain usually involves a multi-pronged approach, utilizing both, multi-modal medical pain control and interventional pain/surgical techniques such as steroid injections, radiofrequency nerve ablation, and minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis. Though conservative management through multi-modal pain control and physical therapy have their role as first line therapies, an increasing body of evidence supports the use of minimally invasive procedures, both as adjuvant treatments to conservative management and as second line therapies for patient's that fail first line treatment.

A Cadaver-Based Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Posterior Approach to Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Analysis of the Fixation and Center of the Instantaneous Axis of Rotation

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the stabilizing effect of a posterior joint fixation technique using a novel cortical allograft implant in unilateral and bilateral fixation constructs. We hypothesize that fixation would reduce the joint's range of motion during flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending loads. We also hypothesize that fixation would shift the center of the instantaneous axis of rotation during the predominant flexion-extension motions towards the implant's location, and that this shift would be correlated with the reduction in flexion-extension range of motion.

Materials and Methods

Six cadaveric sacroiliac joint specimens were tested under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions. The total range of motion (ROM) of the sacroiliac joint in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 Nm applied moment loads. The centers of the instantaneous axis of rotation (cIAR) of the sacroiliac joint were evaluated during flexion-extension loading. A correlation analysis was performed between the ROM reduction in flexion-extension upon implantation and shift of the cIAR to the graft implantation site.

Results

Unilateral and bilateral fixations generated sacroiliac joint ROM reductions in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motions. Fixation shifted the cIAR to the graft implantation site. Reduction in the total range of motion had a moderate correlation with the shift of the cIAR.

Conclusion

Our novel posterior approach presents a multifaceted mechanism for stabilizing the joint: first, by the reduction of the total range of motion in all planes of motion; second, by shifting the centers of the instantaneous axis of rotation towards the implant's location in the predominant plane of motion, ensuring little to no motion at the implantation site, thus promoting fusion in this region.

Biomechanics of a laterally placed sacroiliac joint fusion device supplemental to S2 alar-iliac fixation in a long-segment adult spinal deformity construct: a cadaveric study of stability and strain distribution

OBJECTIVE

S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively enhances stability in long-segment constructs. Although S2AI fixation provides a single transarticular sacroiliac joint fixation (SIJF) point, additional fixation points may provide greater stability and attenuate screw and rod strain. The objectives of this study were to evaluate changes in stability and pedicle screw and rod strain with extended distal S2AI fixation and with supplemental bilateral integration of two sacroiliac joint fusion devices implanted using a traditional minimally invasive surgical approach.

METHODS

Eight L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests under 4 conditions: 1) intact (pure moment loading only); 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod with L5-S1 interbody fusion; 3) added S2AI screws; and 4) added bilateral laterally placed SIJF. Range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw-bending moment (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with S1 fixation, S2AI fixation significantly reduced L5-S1 ROM in right lateral bending by 50% (0.11°, p = 0.049) and in compression by 39% (0.22°, p = 0.003). Compared with fixation ending at S1, extending fixation with S2AI significantly decreased sacroiliac joint ROM by 52% (0.28°, p = 0.02) in flexion, by 65% (0.48°, p = 0.04) in extension, by 59% (0.76°, p = 0.02) in combined flexion-extension, and by 36% (0.09°, p = 0.02) in left axial rotation. The addition of S2AI screws reduced S1 screw-bending moment during flexion (0.106 Nm [43%], p = 0.046). With S2AI fixation, posterior L5-S1 primary rod strain increased by 124% (159 μE, p = 0.002) in flexion, by 149% (285 μE, p = 0.02) in left axial rotation, and by 99% (254 μE, p = 0.04) in right axial rotation. Compared with S2AI fixation, the addition of SIJF reduced L5-S1 strain during right axial rotation by 6% (28 μE, p = 0.04) and increased L5-S1 strain in extension by 6% (28 μE, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-segment constructs ending with S2AI screws created a more stable construct than those ending with S1 screws, reducing lumbosacral and sacroiliac joint motion and S1 screw-bending moment in flexion. These benefits, however, were paired with increased rod strain at the lumbosacral junction. The addition of SIJF to constructs ending at S2AI did not significantly change SI joint ROM or S1 screw bending and reduced S2AI screw bending in compression. SIJF further decreased L5-S1 rod strain in axial rotation and increased it in extension.

Biomechanical effects of a novel posteriorly placed sacroiliac joint fusion device integrated with traditional lumbopelvic long-construct instrumentation

OBJECTIVE

S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively ensures stability and enhances fusion in long-segment constructs. Nevertheless, pelvic fixation is associated with a high rate of mechanical failure. Because of the transarticular nature of the S2AI screw, adding a second point of fixation may provide additional stability and attenuate strains. The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in stability and strain with the integration of a sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion device, implanted through a novel posterior SI approach, supplemental to posterior long-segment fusion.

METHODS

L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests in the following conditions: 1) intact, 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod fixation with L5-S1 interbody fusion, 3) added S2AI screws, and 4) added bilateral SI joint fixation (SIJF). The range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw bending moments (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

S2AI fixation decreased L2-S1 ROM in flexion-extension (p ≤ 0.04), L5-S1 ROM in flexion-extension and compression (p ≤ 0.004), and SI joint ROM during flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.03) compared with S1 fixation. SI joint ROM was significantly less with SIJF in place than with the intact joint, S1, and S2AI fixation in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.01). The S1 screw bending moment decreased following S2AI fixation by as much as 78% in extension, but with statistical significance only in right axial rotation (p = 0.03). Extending fixation to S2AI significantly increased the rod strain at L5-S1 during flexion, axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.048). SIJF was associated with a slight increase in rod strain versus S2AI fixation alone at L5-S1 during left lateral bending (p = 0.048). Compared with the S1 condition, fixation to S2AI increased the mean rod strain at L5-S1 during compression (p = 0.048). The rod strain at L5-S1 was not statistically different with SIJF compared with S2AI fixation (p ≥ 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Constructs ending with an S2AI screw versus an S1 screw tended to be more stable, with reduced SI joint motion. S2AI fixation decreased the S1 screw bending moments compared with fixation ending at S1. These benefits were paired with increased rod strain at L5-S1. Supplementation of S2AI fixation with SIJF implants provided further reductions (approximately 30%) in the sagittal plane and lateral bending SI joint motion compared with fixation ending at the S2AI position. This stability was not paired with significant changes in rod or screw strains.

Biomechanical Effects of a Cross Connector in Sacral Fractures - A Finite Element Analysis

Background: Spinopelvic fractures and approaches of operative stabilization have been a source of controversial discussion. Biomechanical data support the benefit of a spinopelvic stabilization and minimally invasive procedures help to reduce the dissatisfying complication rate. The role of a cross connector within spinopelvic devices remains inconclusive. We aimed to analyze the effect of a cross connector in a finite element model (FE model). Study Design: A FE model of the L1-L5 spine segment with pelvis and a spinopelvic stabilization was reconstructed from patient-specific CT images. The biomechanical relevance of a cross connector in a Denis zone I (AO: 61-B2) sacrum fracture was assessed in the FE model by applying bending and twisting forces with and without a cross connector. Biomechanical outcomes from the numerical model were investigated also considering uncertainties in material properties and levels of osseointegration. Results: The designed FE model showed comparable values in range-of-motion (ROM) and stresses with reference to the literature. The superiority of the spinopelvic stabilization (L5/Os ilium) ± cross connector compared to a non-operative procedure was confirmed in all analyzed loading conditions by reduced ROM and principal stresses in the disk L5/S1, vertebral body L5 and the fracture area. By considering the combination of all loading cases, the presence of a cross connector reduced the maximum stresses in the fracture area of around 10%. This difference has been statistically validated (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The implementation of a spinopelvic stabilization (L5/Os ilium) in sacrum fractures sustained the fracture and led to enhanced biomechanical properties compared to a non-reductive procedure. While the additional cross connector did not alter the resulting ROM in L4/L5 or L5/sacrum, the reduction of the maximum stresses in the fracture area was significant.

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.

Systematic review of sacroiliac joint motion and the effect of screw fixation

BACKGROUND

Pelvic injuries that disrupt the sacroiliac joints often require surgical intervention to restore stability. Quantitative characterization of sacroiliac motion in response to physiologic loading provides important metrics of adequate fixation in the evaluation of newly emerged fixation techniques. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate biomechanical evidence on the motion of the sacroiliac joint in its normal, destabilized, and stabilized states.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database for studies available until June 2020 using keywords: sacroiliac, biomechanic*, and fixation. Publications of any in vivo or in vitro biomechanical study that included measurements of the range of motion at the sacroiliac joint were considered.

FINDINGS

We identified and screened 176 total records, and 13 articles of them met inclusion criteria and were used in this review. The average sacroiliac joint range of motion of the intact pelvis was 1.88° in flexion/extension, 0.85° in lateral bending, 1.26° in axial rotation. Of the 13 studies, four reported sacroiliac motion from a destabilized state, while seven reported the motion after stabilization. A forest plot of the stabilized data set in flexion/extension showed that while the heterogeneity was poor, the weighted effect size of the changes from the intact state to the stabilized state was 0.0%.

INTERPRETATION

Quantitative evidence on sacroiliac joint motion relating to pelvic injuries or fixation is limited. Our results indicate that the pooled intact range of motion from the literature may serve as a viable reference to quantify the effectiveness of new stabilization techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, systematic review.

STUDY TYPE

Therapeutic- investigating the results of a treatment.

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.

Biomechanics of the Sacroiliac Joint: Surgical Treatments

BACKGROUND

Fixation is one of the most common surgical techniques for the treatment of chronic pain originating from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Many studies have investigated the clinical outcomes and biomechanics of various SIJ surgical procedures. However, the biomechanical literature points to several issues that need to be further explored, especially for the devices used in minimally invasive surgery of the SIJ. This study (part II) aims to assess biomechanical literature to understand the existing information as it relates to efficacies of the surgical techniques and the gaps in the knowledge base. Part I reviewed basic anatomy and mechanics of the SIJ joint, including difference between males and females, and causes of pain emanating from these joints.

METHODS

A thorough literature review was performed pertaining to studies related to SIJ fixation techniques and the biomechanical outcomes of the surgical procedures.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies matched the search criteria and were considered for the review. These articles predominantly pertained to the biomechanical outcomes of the minimally invasive surgery with different instrumentation systems and surgical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIJ is one of the most overlooked sources of lower back pain. The joint is responsible for the pain in 15% to 30% of people suffering from lower back pain. Various studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of different surgical procedures intended to improve the pain and quality of life following surgery. The data show that these techniques are indeed effective. However, clinical studies have raised several issues, like optimal number and positioning of implants, unilateral versus bilateral placements, adjacent segment disease, implant designs, and optimal location of implants with respect to variations in bone density across the SIJ. Biomechanical studies using in vitro and in silico techniques have addressed some of these issues. Studies also point out the need for additional investigations for a better understanding of the underlying mechanics for the improved long-term surgical outcomes. Further long-term clinical follow-ups are essential as well. This review presents pertinent findings.

What do we know about the biomechanics of the sacroiliac joint and of sacropelvic fixation? A literature review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the general knowledge about the biomechanics of the sacroiliac joint and sacropelvic fixation techniques. Additionally, this study aims to support biomechanical investigations in defining experimental protocols as well as numerical modeling of the sacropelvic structures. The sacroiliac joint is characterized by a large variability of shape and ranges of motion among individuals. Although the ligament network and the anatomical features strongly limit the joint movements, sacroiliac displacements and rotations are not negligible. Currently available treatments for sacroiliac joint dysfunction include physical therapy, steroid injections, Radio-frequency ablation of specific neural structures, and open or minimally invasive SIJ fusion. In long posterior construct, the most common solutions are the iliac screws and the S2 alar - iliac screws, whereas for the joint fixation alone, mini - invasive alternative system can be used. Several studies reported the clinical outcomes of the different techniques and investigated the biomechanical stability of the relative construct, but the effect of sacropelvic fixation techniques on the joint flexibility and on the stress generated into the bone is still unknown. In our opinion, more biomechanical analyses on the behavior of the sacroiliac joint may be performed in order to better predict the risk of failure or instability of the joint.

A biomechanical investigation of the sacroiliac joint in the setting of lumbosacral fusion: impact of pelvic fixation versus sacroiliac joint fixation

OBJECTIVE

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known source of low-back pain. Randomized clinical trials support sacroiliac fusion over conservative management for SIJ dysfunction. Clinical studies suggest that SIJ degeneration occurs in the setting of lumbosacral fusions. However, there are few biomechanical studies to provide a good understanding of the effect of lumbosacral fusion on the SIJ. In the present study, researchers performed a biomechanical investigation to discern the effect of pelvic versus SIJ fixation on the SIJ in lumbosacral fusion.

METHODS

Seven fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens were used. There was one intact specimen and six operative constructs: 1) posterior pedicle screws and rods from T10 to S1 (PS); 2) PS + bilateral iliac screw fixation (BIS); 3) PS + unilateral iliac screw fixation (UIS); 4) PS + UIS + 3 contralateral unilateral SIJ screws (UIS + 3SIJ); 5) PS + 3 unilateral SIJ screws (3SIJ); and 6) PS + 6 bilateral SIJ screws (6SIJ). A custom-built 6 degrees-of-freedom apparatus was used to simulate three bending modes: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM) was recorded at L5-S1 and the SIJ.

RESULTS

All six operative constructs had significantly reduced ROM at L5-S1 in all three bending modes compared to that of the intact specimen (p < 0.05). In the FE mode, the BIS construct had a significant reduction in L5-S1 ROM as compared to the other five constructs (p < 0.05). SIJ ROM was greatest in the FE mode compared to LB and AR. Although the FE mode did not show any statistically significant differences in SIJ ROM across the constructs, there were appreciable differences. The PS construct had the highest SIJ ROM. The BIS construct reduced bilateral SIJ ROM by 44% in comparison to the PS construct. The BIS and 6SIJ constructs showed reductions in SIJ ROM nearly equal to those of the PS construct. UIS and 3SIJ showed an appreciable reduction in unfused SIJ ROM compared to PS.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation demonstrated the effects of various fusion constructs using pelvic and sacroiliac fixation in lumbosacral fusion. This study adds biomechanical evidence of adjacent segment stress in the SIJ in fusion constructs extending to S1. Unilateral pelvic fixation, or SIJ fusion, led to an appreciable but nonsignificant reduction in the ROM of the unfused contralateral SIJ. Bilateral pelvic fixation showed the greatest significant reduction of movement at L5-S1 and was equivalent to bilateral sacroiliac fusion in reducing SIJ motion.

Joint coordinate system for biomechanical analysis of the sacroiliac joint

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) biomechanics have been described in both in vitro and in vivo studies. A standard for joint coordinate systems has been created by the International Society of Biomechanics for most of the joints in the human body. However, a standardized joint coordinate system for sacroiliac joint motion analysis is currently still lacking. This impedes the comparison across studies and hinders communication among scientists and clinicians. As SIJ motion is reported to be quite limited, a proper standardization and reproducibility of this procedure is essential for the interpretation of future biomechanical SIJ studies. This paper proposes a joint coordinate system for the analysis of sacroiliac joint motion, based on the procedure developed by Grood and Suntay, using semi-automated anatomical landmarks on 3D joint surfaces. This coordinate system offers high inter-rater reliability and aspires to a more intuitive representation of biomechanical data, as it is aligned with SIJ articular surfaces. This study aims to encourage further reflection and debate on biomechanical data representation, in order to facilitate interpretation of SIJ biomechanics and improve communication between researchers and clinicians. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res.