Sacroiliac Joint Treatment Personalized to Individual Patient Anatomy Using 3-Dimensional Navigation

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.].

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.

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.

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

Background

Describe a novel technique for sacroiliac arthrodesis using intraoperative navigation, direct bone grafting, and minimally invasive implants. Report on the outcomes of the first cohort of these patients.

Methods

Institutional review board (IRB) approved, single center, two surgeon, retrospective study.

Results

All patients were 18 years or older, primary sacroiliac fusions, and underwent novel technique described. Fifty patients underwent 57 surgeries. Twelve male/38 female patients. All received three sacroiliac implants. Average blood loss 42.8 mL. Average length of stay 1.9 nights. Average follow-up 13.96±13 months. Statistically significant improvements in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores (<0.001) for all time periods 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months compared to preop. Other outcomes scores [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Denver Sacroiliac Joint Questionnaire (DSIJQ)] also showed a general trend for clinical improvement at all postoperative time periods. Of 2/57 (3.5%) complications were identified. No patients required surgical revision within the study window.

Conclusions

Limited open sacroiliac arthrodesis using minimally invasive implants, intraoperative navigation, and direct open bone grafting is safe and demonstrates clinical benefit, similar to other techniques for minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis. There is potential for improved long-term outcomes from increased union rates.

Keywords

Sacroiliac dysfunction; minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion; open sacroiliac fusion; navigation.