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
  • [1] Review of Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Lee, David W.
    Patterson, Denis G.
    Sayed, Dawood
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 15 (03): : 514 - 524
  • [2] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Phillips, Frank M.
    Garfin, Steven R.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2011, 34 (08) : 600 - 601
  • [3] Sacroiliac dysfunction and minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
    Fleming, Jacob W.
    Pan, Tommy
    Abubakar, Mohammed
    Shonnard, Matthew
    Radlicz, Chris
    Beall, Douglas P.
    TECHNIQUES IN VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2024, 27 (03)
  • [4] Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion With Decortication: The EVoluSIon Clinical Study
    Kucharzyk, Donald
    Colle, Kyle
    Boone, Christopher
    Araghi, Ali
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2022, 16 (01): : 168 - 175
  • [5] Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Fusion Rates and Clinical Improvement Using Minimally Invasive Approach and Intraoperative Navigation and Robotic Guidance
    Sarkar, Mehul
    Maalouly, Joseph
    Ruparel, Sameer
    Choi, John
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 16 (06) : 882 - 889
  • [6] Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Scoping Review
    Mehkri, Yusuf
    Tishad, Abtahi
    Nichols, Spencer
    Scott, Kyle W.
    Arias, Jonathan
    Lucke-Wold, Brandon
    Rahmathulla, Gazanfar
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 168 : 120 - 132
  • [7] Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis
    Schmidt, Gary L.
    Bologna, Matthew
    Schorr, Rebecca
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2021, 13 (01) : 71 - 76
  • [8] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Decortication and Bone Grafting: 1-year Clinical Outcomes
    Grunch, Betsy H.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 67 : 246 - 247
  • [9] 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
  • [10] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: The Current Evidence
    Martin, Christopher T.
    Haase, Lucas
    Lender, Paul A.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 14 : S20 - S29