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
  • [41] Minimally invasive lateral transiliac sacroiliac joint fusion using 3D-printed triangular titanium implants
    Patel, Vikas
    Kovalsky, Don
    Meyer, S. Craig
    Chowdhary, Abhineet
    Lockstadt, Harry
    Techy, Fernando
    Billys, James
    Limoni, Robert
    Yuan, Philip S.
    Kranenburg, Andy
    Cher, Daniel
    Tender, Gabriel
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2019, 12 : 203 - 214
  • [42] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium versus Cylindrical Threaded Implants: A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes
    Claus, Chad F.
    Lytle, Evan
    Kaufmann, Ascher
    Tong, Doris
    Bahoura, Matthew
    Garmo, Lucas
    Richards, Boyd
    Soo, Teck M.
    Houseman, Clifford
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 133 : E745 - E750
  • [43] Postoperative complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion
    Schoell, Kyle
    Buser, Zorica
    Jakoi, Andre
    Pham, Martin
    Patel, Neil N.
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    Liu, John C.
    Wang, Jeffrey C.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2016, 16 (11) : 1324 - 1332
  • [44] Six Month Interim Outcomes from SECURE: A Single arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Novel Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device
    Calodney, Aaron K.
    Azeem, Nomen
    Buchanan, Patrick
    Skaribas, Ioannis
    Antony, Ajay
    Kim, Christopher
    Girardi, George
    Vu, Chau
    Bovinet, Christopher
    Vogel, Rainer S.
    Li, Sean
    Jassal, Naveep
    Josephson, Youssef
    Lubenow, Timothy R.
    Girardi, Nicholas
    Pope, Jason E.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2022, 19 (05) : 451 - 461
  • [45] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion—a Review
    Caio M. Matias
    Lohit Velagapudi
    Thiago S. Montenegro
    Joshua E. Heller
    Current Pain and Headache Reports, 2022, 26 : 173 - 182
  • [46] Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management
    Sturesson, Bengt
    Kools, Djaya
    Pflugmacher, Robert
    Gasbarrini, Alessandro
    Prestamburgo, Domenico
    Dengler, Julius
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 26 (03) : 708 - 719
  • [47] Utility of minimally invasive percutaneous arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint for the treatment of low back pain: systematic review of the literature
    Acevedo-Gonzalez, Juan Carlos
    Lacouture-Silgado, Isabella
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2025, 34 (03) : 974 - 1003
  • [48] Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy
    Whang, Peter G.
    Patel, Vikas
    Duhon, Bradley
    Sturesson, Bengt
    Cher, Daniel
    Reckling, W. Carlton
    Capobianco, Robyn
    Polly, David
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2023, 17 (06) : 794 - 808
  • [49] Triangular Titanium Implants for Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Prospective Study
    Duhon, Bradley S.
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Wine, Kathryn D.
    Kovalsky, Don A.
    Lockstadt, Harry
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2016, 6 (03) : 257 - 269
  • [50] Minimally Invasive Posterior Atlantoaxial Fusion: A Cadaveric and Clinical Feasibility Study
    Taghva, Alexander
    Attenello, Frank J.
    Zada, Gabriel
    Khalessi, Alexander A.
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2013, 80 (3-4) : 414 - 421