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
  • [31] Minimally invasive arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ)
    Kasapovic, Adnan
    Ali, Thaer
    Jaenisch, Max
    Rommelspacher, Yorck
    Gathen, Martin
    Pflugmacher, Robert
    Schwetje, Desiree
    OPERATIVE ORTHOPADIE UND TRAUMATOLOGIE, 2022, 34 (02): : 98 - 108
  • [32] Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
    Ledonio, Charles G. T.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Swiontkowski, Marc F.
    Cummings, John T., Jr.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2014, 7 (01) : 187 - 193
  • [33] Minimally invasive arthrodesis for chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction using the SImmetry SI Joint Fusion system
    Miller, Larry E.
    Block, Jon E.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2014, 7 : 125 - 130
  • [34] Patient-Reported Outcomes and Computed Tomography Review After Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint With Aggressive Joint Decortication and Joint Compression
    Cross III, William W.
    Tomov, Marko N.
    Hung, Michelle Y.
    Muir, Jeffrey M.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2024, 47 (02) : 101 - 107
  • [35] Return to Duty in Military Service Members Following Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Cognetti, Daniel J.
    Anderson, Kevin D.
    Handcox, Jordan E.
    Jorgensen, Anton Y.
    MILITARY MEDICINE, 2024, 189 (3-4) : e668 - e673
  • [36] Ethnic Differences in Western and Asian Sacroiliac Joint Anatomy for Surgical Planning of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Wu, Christopher
    Liu, Yu-Cheng
    Koga, Hiroaki
    Lee, Ching-Yu
    Wang, Po-Yao
    Cher, Daniel
    Reckling, W. Carlton
    Huang, Tsung-Jen
    Wu, Meng-Huang
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (05)
  • [37] Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion: current insights and a comprehensive literature review
    Apaydin, Aydin Sinan
    Yurtluk, Mehmet Denizhan
    Than, Khoi D.
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2024, 54 (06) : 1185 - 1191
  • [38] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion Revision: A Technique Guide
    Cognetti, Daniel J.
    Jorgensen, Anton Y.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 15 (02) : 274 - 279
  • [39] Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Frasco, Melissa A.
    Arnold, Renee J. G.
    Polly, David W.
    CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2016, 8 : 1 - 14
  • [40] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion, Radiofrequency Denervation, and Conservative Management for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: 6-Year Comparative Case Series
    Vanaclocha, Vicente
    Herrera, Juan Manuel
    Saiz-Sapena, Nieves
    Rivera-Paz, Marlon
    Verdu-Lopez, Francisco
    NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 82 (01) : 48 - 55