Clinical outcomes for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with allograft using a posterior approach

被引:2
|
作者
Moghim, Robert [1 ]
Bovinet, Chris [2 ]
Jin, Max Y. [3 ]
Edwards, Katie [1 ]
Abd-Elsayed, Alaa [3 ]
机构
[1] Colorado Pain Care, Denver, CO USA
[2] Spine Ctr Southeast Georgia, Brunswick, GA USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin Madison, Dept Anesthesiol, Madison, WI USA
关键词
arthrodesis; chronic pain; posterior sacroiliac joint fusion; sacroiliac joint dysfunction; LOW-BACK-PAIN; CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT; DIAGNOSIS; ARTHRODESIS; IMPLANTS; MULTICENTER; SAFETY; SERIES; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1111/papr.13406
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BackgroundSacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction can occur as a result of injury, degeneration, or inflammation. This dysfunction presents symptoms of pain at various locations, including the low back, hips, buttocks, and legs. The diagnosis of SIJ dysfunction is challenging and cannot be achieved solely with imaging studies such as X-rays, MRI, or CT. The current gold standard diagnostic modality is intra-articular SIJ blocks using two differing local anesthetics. Current treatments for SIJ dysfunction may be beneficial for short-term relief but lack long-term efficacy. The purpose of our study was to examine the outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive, posterior SIJ fusion using allograft at a single center. MethodsThis was a retrospective study which received exemption from the WCG IRB. Data regarding preoperative and postoperative pain levels, surgical time, complications, and medication usage were obtained retrospectively from patient electronic medical records and prescription drug monitoring program reports. No mapping was completed prior to the procedure. Pain was assessed with the 11-point (0-10) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and medication usage was assessed using Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME). Patients were included if they had been diagnosed with SIJ dysfunction using two intra-articular diagnostic blocks that resulted in at least an 80% decrease in pain and had failed conservative management. Patients with sacral insufficiency fractures were excluded. ResultsVAS scores reduced from 8.26 (SD = 1.09) at baseline to 2.59 (SD = 2.57), 2.55 (SD = 2.56), 2.71 (SD = 2.88), and 2.71 (SD = 2.88) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. MME reduced from 78.21 mg (SD = 51.33) to 58.95 mg (SD = 48.64), 57.61 mg (SD = 47.92), 61.71 mg (SD = 45.64), and 66.29 mg (SD = 51.65) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. All reductions in VAS scores and MME were statistically significant. No adverse events occurred, and the average operating room time was 40.16 min (SD = 6.27). ConclusionMinimally invasive, posterior SIJ fusion using allograft is a safe and efficacious method for managing SIJ dysfunction.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A New Approach to the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain and First Patient-Reported Outcomes Using a Novel Arthrodesis Technique for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Fuchs, Volker
    Rieger, Bernhard
    ORTHOPEDIC RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, 2024, 16 : 43 - 57
  • [22] Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Approaches and Recent Outcomes
    Yson, Sharon C.
    Sembrano, Jonathan N.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    PM&R, 2019, 11 : S114 - S117
  • [23] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Stabilization
    Novak, V
    Wanek, T.
    Hrabalek, L.
    Stejskal, P.
    ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE CECHOSLOVACA, 2021, 88 (01) : 35 - 38
  • [24] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Cylindrical Threaded Implants Using Intraoperative Stereotactic Navigation
    Rajpal, Sharad
    Burneikiene, Sigita
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 122 : E1588 - E1591
  • [25] Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Outcomes: Results from SECURE: A Single Arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Allograft Implant
    Calodney, Aaron
    Azeem, Nomen
    Buchanan, Patrick
    Skaribas, Ioannis
    Antony, Ajay
    Kim, Christopher
    Girardi, George
    Vu, Chau
    Bovinet, Christopher
    Vogel, Rainer
    Li, Sean
    Jassal, Navdeep
    Josephson, Youssef
    Lubenow, Timothy
    Lam, Christopher M.
    Deer, Timothy R.
    JOURNAL OF PAIN RESEARCH, 2024, 17 : 1209 - 1222
  • [26] Duration and Magnitude of Opioid Use After Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Benson, Dillon
    Litvak, Audrey
    Zhang, Douglas
    Johnson, Christopher
    El Dafrawy, Mostafa
    Lee, Michael
    SPINE, 2024, 49 (12) : 857 - 864
  • [27] Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Medani, Khalid
    Alsalama, Abdulrhman
    Kumar, Rakesh
    Patel, Shlok
    Patel, Megh
    Manjila, Sunil
    BRAIN AND SPINE, 2025, 5
  • [28] Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis
    Schmidt, Gary L.
    Bologna, Matthew
    Schorr, Rebecca
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2021, 13 (01) : 71 - 76
  • [29] MINIMALLY INVASIVE SACROILIAC JOINT FUSION A Lateral Approach Using Triangular Titanium Implants and Navigation
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Holton, Kenneth J.
    JBJS ESSENTIAL SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2020, 10 (04): : 411 - 422
  • [30] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion-a Review
    Matias, Caio M.
    Velagapudi, Lohit
    Montenegro, Thiago S.
    Heller, Joshua E.
    CURRENT PAIN AND HEADACHE REPORTS, 2022, 26 (03) : 173 - 182