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.

Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis

Objective

To report patient‐reported outcomes of minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion as a case series.

Methods

This study was a retrospective cohort study of patients 18 years of age and older who underwent a minimally invasive SI joint fusion by a single surgeon between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. Routine demographic data, characteristics, and relevant surgical and clinical data were all collected for this group. In addition, patients completed preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Short Form 36 (SF‐36) questionnaires to assess outcomes. Patient selection for SI fusion was based on short‐term resolution of symptoms (80% or greater relief) with an image‐guided intra‐articular injection of local anesthetic. Routine statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Fisher's exact test, or χ² analysis as appropriate.

Results

This study included 19 patients comprising 24 SI fusions, with a mean follow‐up of 58 months. The average patient age was 50 years and the average surgical blood loss was 25 cc. Men comprised 79% of the cohort. The VAS score improved from 7 to 3 (P = 0.0001). SF‐36 physical function, role limitations due to physical health, and role limitations due to emotional health improved to a statistically significant extent. General health was not significantly changed. Every patient showed improvement in their SF‐36 physical function scores (mean 40 preoperatively to 55 at final follow up) and 18 of 19 showed improvement in the VAS score (mean 7 preoperatively to 3 at final follow‐up).

Conclusion

In appropriately selected patients, minimally invasive SI joint fusion results in decreased pain and improved physical functioning of patients, which is sustained for more than 4 years post‐procedure.

Clinical outcome following anterior arthrodesis in patients with presumed sacroiliac joint pain

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that in 13-32% of patients with chronic low back pain, the pain may originate in the sacroiliac (SI) joints. When treatment of these patients with analgesics and physiotherapy has failed, a surgical solution may be discussed. Results of such surgery are often based on small series, retrospective analyses or studies using a minimal invasive technique, frequently sponsored by manufacturers.

PURPOSE

To report the clinical outcome concerning pain, function and quality of life following anterior arthrodesis in patients presumed to have SI joint pain using validated questionnaires pre- and post-operatively. An additional aim was to describe the symptoms of the patients included and the preoperative investigations performed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6 year period we treated 55 patients, all women, with a mean age of 45 years (range 28-65) and a mean pelvic pain duration of 9.1 years (range 2-30). The pain started in connection with minor trauma in seven patients, pregnancy in 20 and unspecified in 28. All patients had undergone long periods of treatment including physiotherapy, manipulation, needling, pelvic belt, massage and chiropractic without success, and 15 had been operated for various spinal diagnoses without improvement. The patients underwent thorough neurological investigation, plain X-ray and MRI of the spine and plain X-ray of the pelvis. They were investigated by seven clinical tests aimed at indicating pain from the SI joints. In addition, all patients underwent a percutaneous mechanical provocation test and extra-articular local anaesthetic blocks against the posterior part of the SI joints. Before surgery all patients answered the generic Short-Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, the disease specific Balanced Inventory for Spinal Disorders (BIS) questionnaire and rated their level of pelvic and leg pain (VAS, 0-100). At follow-up at a mean of 2 years 49 patients completed the same questionnaires (89%).

RESULTS

At follow-up 26 patients reported a lower level of pelvic pain than before surgery, 16 the same level and six a higher level. Applying Svensson's method RP_{pelvic pain}=0.3976, with 95% CI (0.2211, 0.5740) revealed a statistically significant systematic improvement in pelvic pain. At follow-up 28 patients reported a higher quality of life and 26 reported sleeping better than pre-operatively. In most patients the character of the pelvic pain was dull and aching, often accompanied by a stabbing component in connection with sudden movements. Referred pain down the leg/s even to the feet and toes was noted by half of the patients and 29 experienced frequency of micturition.

CONCLUSIONS

It is apparent that in some patients the SI joints may cause long-term pain that can be treated by arthrodesis. We speculate that continued pain despite a healed arthrodesis may be due to persistent pain from adjacent ligaments. The next step should be a prospective randomized study comparing posterior fusion and ligament resection with non-surgical treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

Anterior arthrodesis can apparently relieve pain in some patients with presumed SI joint pain. The problem is how to identify these patients within the low back pain group.