Mini-open sacroiliac joint fusion with direct bone grafting and minimally invasive fixation using intraoperative navigation

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.

Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) is indicated in patients with chronic Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain or instability and is usually performed using minimally invasive techniques through lateral or posterior approach.

Research question

Our study aims to compare the lateral approach to the posterior one in SIJF through meta-analysis of other studies. The outcome of each approach is measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), or both.

Materials and methods

The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Articles were extracted using Pubmed advance search till February 27th, 2023. Articles included were those limited to either lateral, posterior or both approaches. Articles written in a non-English language, case reports and smaller-than-three case series were excluded from the study. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales. Stata-17 software program was used for statistical analysis and creation of forest plots.

Results

Forty-eight articles were available for the quantitative analysis, which represents a total of 2562 subjects. The average duration of postoperative follow-up was 21 months (3-72 months) and 17 months (6-72 months) for the VAS and ODI outcomes, respectively. The average percentage of improvement in the VAS was 57% (22-80%) in the lateral approach versus 58% (29-94%) in the posterior approach (p = 0.986). The average percentage of improvement in the ODI was 42% (11-75%) in the lateral approach versus 31% (11-65%) in the posterior one (p = 0.272). A trend towards performing posterior approaches more frequently was noted in studies published after 2017.

Discussion and conclusion

Approach selection for SIJF depends mainly on patient's characteristics and surgeon's experience. Our study demonstrated no difference in VAS outcome between lateral and posterior approach. Lateral approach appeared to be superior in ODI outcome although not statistically significant. The main limitation of the study is the selection-bias as the majority of articles included were observational. Therefore, randomized procedural trials are needed to validate these findings.

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.

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.].

The Sacroiliac Joint: A Current State-of-the-Art Review

» The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common cause of low back pain and should be included in the differential diagnosis.» Nonoperative treatment of sacroiliac pain is always the first line of therapy; however, when it is unsuccessful and becomes chronic, then recurrent nonoperative treatment becomes expensive.» Surgical treatment is cost-effective in appropriately selected patients. High-quality clinical trials have demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement compared with nonsurgical management in appropriately selected patients.» Spinal fusion to the sacrum increases degeneration of the SIJ and frequency of SIJ pain.

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

Posterior oblique technique for sacroiliac joint fusion leads to greater pain relief and similar improvement in function compared to the lateral technique: A retrospective, comparative study

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment is increasingly turning toward minimally invasive SIJ fusion. There are different techniques available to perform this procedure, with the lateral technique being more commonly studied than the posterior oblique technique. This study examined the effects of these techniques on pain relief and functional improvement, both preoperatively and at a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 45 patients who underwent SIJ fusion. Included patients were ≥50 years old, nonresponsive to conservative treatment. Subjects were divided into 2 cohorts based on the SIJ fusion technique. Primary outcomes were pain relief, measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional improvement, determined by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); both were recorded and assessed at baseline, postoperative, and the change from pre- to postoperative. Additionally, data regarding patient demographics, previous lumbar fusion, operative time, and duration of hospital stay were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical variables exhibited no significant differences in distribution between groups. The posterior oblique cohort demonstrated a substantial reduction in operative time (over 50%) and duration of hospital stay compared to lateral cohort. Pain relief (postoperative VAS: lateral 3.5±1.7 vs. posterior oblique 2.4±1.5 [p=.02]) and functional improvement (postoperative ODI: lateral 29.6±7.3 vs. posterior oblique 21±5.7 [p≤.001]) were significantly better in the posterior oblique group. Pre- to postoperative improvement analysis indicated greater reduction in pain (VAS: lateral -4.4±1.9 vs. posterior oblique -6.1±1.5 [p=.002]) in the posterior oblique group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the lateral technique group, patients undergoing minimally invasive SIJ fusion through the posterior oblique technique experienced greater pain relief and demonstrated a trend toward better functional improvement, with shorter operative times and duration of hospital stay. The posterior oblique technique may be more efficient and beneficial to manage patients suffering from chronic SIJ pain through joint fusion.

Alternative Uses of O-Arm and Stealth Navigation Technology Over 10 Years: The University of Colorado Experience

Intraoperative computed tomography scanning with O-arm and use of Stealth navigation can improve surgical outcomes in a variety of orthopedic subspecialties. In spine surgery, the accuracy, precision, and safety of pedicle screw and interbody implant placement has improved. This technology is now routinely used in percutaneous pedicle screw placement and minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Other applications include, but are not limited to, isthmic pars defect repair, lumbosacral pseudoarticulation resection in Bertolotti's syndrome, radiofrequency ablation, and en bloc tumor resection. Intraoperative navigation has numerous applications, and use of this technology should continue to evolve as the technology advances. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(2):e89-e97.].

Posterior Oblique Approach for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion

Introduction Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a common source of low back pain. Though this condition can be treated with conservative measures, there is a subset of patients who fail to respond to conservative treatment. For them, surgical treatment using minimally invasive techniques could be considered. There are currently a number of SIJ fixation methods described. However, there is no case series reported on posterior oblique approach. Therefore, in this paper, the authors report their experience with the Sacrix system via the posterior oblique approach. Method In this series, 19 patients aged 44-84 years, with a median of 58 years, underwent SIJ fusion using this technique. This is a posterior oblique approach in which two screws are inserted into the ilium through the posterior part of the iliac crest and then advanced into the sacrum through the SIJ. Results The follow-up is between 7 and 30 months, with a median of 12 months. Eighteen patients had excellent pain relief. There was no complication from the procedure, and the blood loss was minimal. All eight patients who had follow-up radiographs showed solid fusion. Conclusion Posterior oblique approach for SIJ fusion is a minimally invasive procedure that proved to be effective and safe in this series. It also resulted in solid radiographic fusion, decreased pain, and improved function.

Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Fusion Rates and Clinical Improvement Using Minimally Invasive Approach and Intraoperative Navigation and Robotic Guidance

STUDY DESIGN

This study adopted a retrospective study design.

PURPOSE

This study was designed to describe the fusion rate and technique and patient subjective improvement after sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion using a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

The SI joint can mimic radicular or discogenic pain localized to the lower back, gluteal region, or sacral region, posing a challenge in the diagnosis and treatment. This study determines the radiological fusion rate and patient reported subjective clinical outcomes of SI joint fusion using an MIS approach, comparing the use of the Rialto SI joint fusion system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) with the help of the Stealth Navigation System with the use of ExcelsiusGPS Robotic Navigation Platform (Globus Medical Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) using SI-LOK screws (Globus Medical Inc.).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 43 consecutive patients who underwent SI joint fusion between August 2017 and February 2020 were enrolled; 60 SI joints were fused. The patients' fusion was documented on computed tomography or X-rays, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were used to determine patient subjective clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 60 joints were fused, including 26 joints fused using robotic guidance and 34 joints fused using the Stealth Navigation System. Student t-test was used to compare the mean preoperative VAS score (7.52±1.3) with the mean postoperative VAS score at the 12-month follow-up (1.43±1.22) (p<0.05). The SI joint fusion rate using this technique was 61% at 6 months, 96.4% at 12 months, and 100% at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of navigation guidance or robotic assistance enables accurate percutaneous screw placement across the SI joint. The use of bone morphogenetic protein in the screw bore hastens fusion across the joint, improving patient-perceived pain.

Surgical and clinical efficacy of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery: a meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction has been shown to cause significant morbidity. Current treatment includes conservative management and surgical intervention. Previously published data reporting clinical and surgical outcomes reached conflicting conclusions. This protocol aims to conduct a meta-analysis to determine fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) SIJ fusions compared with conservative treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We drafted our protocol according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We will search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual search when necessary. Two independent reviewers will screen for eligibility by title/abstract, then full text, arbitrated by a third reviewer if necessary. The two reviewers will carry out a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for randomised controlled trial and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies tool for observational cohort studies. A third reviewer will arbitrate any disagreement. We will perform data synthesis using Review Manager (RevMan for Windows, V.5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (V.3.3.070). Meta-bias will be evaluated and confidence determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this review will not be required as no patient data is being collected. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021273481.

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.

Advances in Pain Medicine: a Review of New Technologies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review highlights the interventional musculoskeletal techniques that have evolved in recent years.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent progress in pain medicine technologies presented here represents the ideal treatment of the pain patient which is to provide personalized care. Advances in pain physiology research and pain management technologies support each other concurrently. As new technologies give rise to new perspectives and understanding of pain, new research inspires the development of new technologies.

Clinical results following robotic navigation guidance for sacroiliac joint fusion in 36 patients

OBJECTIVE

In this study, the authors aimed to describe a new technique of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion using a robotic navigation guidance system and to document clinical results with patient-reported visual analog scale (VAS) scores.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with SIJ dysfunction were surgically treated using 2 hydroxyapatite (HA)–coated, threaded screws with the aid of the robotic navigation system. In a total of 36 patients, 51 SIJs were fused during the study period. Patients’ VAS scores were used to determine clinical improvement in pain. Postoperative imaging at routine intervals during the follow-up period was also performed for assessment of radiological fusion. In addition, complication events were recorded, including reoperations.

RESULTS

All 36 patients had successful fusion evidenced by both CT and clinical assessment at the final follow-up. Two patients underwent reoperation because of screw loosening. The mean preoperative VAS score was 7.2 ± 1.1, and the mean 12-month postoperative VAS score was 1.6 ± 1.46. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and demonstrated a substantial clinical improvement in pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic navigation–assisted SIJ fusion using 2 HA-coated, threaded screws placed across the joint was an acceptable technique that demonstrated reliable clinical results with a significant improvement in patient-reported VAS pain scores.

Sacral Dysmorphism Increases the Risk of Superior Gluteal Artery Injury in Percutaneous Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Case Report and Literature Review

Sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction is a significant contributor to low back pain. Percutaneous SI joint fusion is a minimally invasive procedure that can provide excellent pain relief for patients, but it is not without complications, especially in patients with abnormal lumbosacral anatomy. We report the case of a 71-year-old man with sacral dysmorphism who had a painful SI joint that was refractory to conservative therapy. After undergoing an elective percutaneous SI joint fusion, he was discharged in stable condition. He returned in a delayed fashion with a large subgluteal hematoma. Imaging revealed disruption of a branch of the superior gluteal artery (SGA). Surgical exploration and ligation of the SGA were undertaken. Sacral dysmorphism affects SI joint fusion procedures by altering sacral anatomy and the safe zones for SI joint implants. Variations in lumbosacral anatomy can also alter the course of the SGA and adjacent nerves. Due to the wide prevalence of sacral dysmorphism, especially in the setting of low back pain, pre-surgical planning to avoid iatrogenic injuries must be considered with advanced imaging studies such as a computed tomography angiogram of the pelvis or catheter-based angiogram, or alternative surgical approaches to the SI joint must be taken.

Robot-assisted revision of sacroiliac joint fusion using a triangular titanium implant in an S2-alar-iliac trajectory: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction can lead to significant pain and disability, greatly impairing quality of life. Arthrodesis may take up to 1 year to occur, after which revision can be considered. There is a need for highly accurate and reproducible techniques for revision that allow for purchase through undisturbed bone to prevent prolonged pain and disability. Moreover, a minimally invasive technique for revision would be favorable for recovery, particularly in elderly patients.

OBSERVATIONS

An 84-year-old man with a prior history of lumbar fusion presented with severe buttock pain limiting ambulation and sitting because of the failure of arthrodesis after SIJ fusion 1 year earlier. He underwent revision using a triangular titanium implant (TTI) in an S2-alar-iliac (S2-AI) trajectory under robotic guidance, which is a novel technique not yet described in the literature. The patient’s pain largely resolved, he was able to ambulate independently, and his quality of life improved tremendously. There were no complications of surgery.

LESSONS

Placement of a TTI using an S2-AI trajectory is a safe and effective method for revision that can be considered for elderly patients. Robot-assisted navigation can be used to facilitate an accurate and reproducible approach using a minimally invasive approach.

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.