Sacroiliac joint fusion health care cost comparison prior to and following surgery: an administrative claims analysis

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.

Full-Endoscopic Sacroiliac Joint Denervation for Painful Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Outcomes and Predictors for Improved Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Full-endoscopic sacroiliac joint denervation (FE-SJD) is a novel technique for the management of pain secondary to sacroiliac joint dysfunction. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy, safety, clinical outcomes, and outcome predictors of uniportal full-endoscopic sacroiliac joint denervation.

METHODS

From 2019 to 2021, a total of 47 consecutive patients with pain secondary to sacroiliac joint dysfunction underwent uniportal FE-SJD through posterior approach by a single fellowship-trained spine surgeon. A retrospective analysis of perioperative parameters, complications, and clinical outcomes were obtained prospectively.

RESULTS

The patient cohort had a mean age of 59.4 ± 14.0 years, with 63.8% females. Symptom duration averaged 62.1 ± 53.7 months. The mean operative time was 57.1 ± 16.8 minutes. All patients were discharged on the same day of surgery. Significant improvement was noted in preoperative visual analog score (back) and Oswestry Disability Index scores at 3, 6, 12 months, and 2 years ( P < .001). Thirty-four patients (72.3%) returned to normal functioning with an average of 82% pain relief and a satisfaction rate of 78.7% at a mean follow-up of 18.2 ± 13.1 months. There were no intraoperative complications. One patient had postoperative right L5 dysesthesia. Seven patients (14.9%) underwent contralateral FE-SJD due to satisfaction with the index procedure but residual pain on the contralateral side. Concomitant lumbar issues correlated with less functional improvement at 2 years ( P = .009).

CONCLUSION

The long-term clinical results of FE-SJD are favorable. Endoscopic denervation of the dorsal rami branches supplying the sacroiliac joint represents a safe, effective, and durable option to address pain secondary to sacroiliac joint dysfunction. A significant factor that influences outcomes is the presence of concomitant lumbar pathology. Further research is needed to compare this technique with current available treatment options.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs Conservative Management in Patients With Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is affected in 14% to 22% in individuals presenting with chronic low back or buttock pain. This percentage is even higher in patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery: 32% to 42%. Currently, there is no standard treatment or surgical indication for SIJ dysfunction. When patients do not respond well to nonsurgical treatment, minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) seems to be a reasonable option. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature on the effectiveness of MISJF compared to conservative management in patients with SIJ dysfunction.

METHODS

A systematic search of health-care databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies that compared MISJF with conservative management. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, and patient satisfaction measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, financial benefits, and costs.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and one retrospective cohort study were included comparing MISJF and conservative management with regard to pain and disability outcome, encompassing 388 patients (207 conservative and 181 surgical). In a pooled mean difference analysis, MISJF demonstrated greater reduction in visual analog scale-pain score compared to conservative management: -37.03 points (95%CI [-43.91, -30.15], P < 0.001). Moreover, MISJF was associated with a greater reduction in Oswestry Disability Index outcome: -21.14 points (95% CI [-24.93, -17.35], P < 0.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that MISJF, using cannulated triangular, titanium implants, is more effective and cost-effective than conservative management in reducing pain and disability in patients with SIJ dysfunction. Further well-powered, independent research is needed to improve the overall evidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1

A painful unknown: sacroiliac joint diagnosis and treatment

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a complex anatomical structure located near the centre of gravity of the body.

Micro-traumatic SIJ disorders are very difficult to diagnose and require a complete clinical and radiological examination.

To diagnose micro-trauma SIJ pain it is recommended to have at least three positive provocative specific manoeuvres and then a radiologically controlled infiltration test.

Conservative treatment combining physiotherapy and steroid injections is the most common therapy but has a low level of efficiency. SIJ thermolysis is the most efficient non-invasive therapy.

SIJ fusion using a percutaneous technique is a solution that has yet to be confirmed on a large cohort of patients resistant to other therapies.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:691-698. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190081