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] 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
  • [22] ISASS Policy 2016 Update - Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Lorio, Morgan P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2016, 10
  • [23] Utility of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring during Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint
    Woods, Michael
    Birkholz, Denise
    MacBarb, Regina
    Capobianco, Robyn
    Woods, Adam
    ADVANCES IN ORTHOPEDICS, 2014, 2014
  • [24] 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
  • [25] 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)
  • [26] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Stabilization
    Novak, V
    Wanek, T.
    Hrabalek, L.
    Stejskal, P.
    ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE CECHOSLOVACA, 2021, 88 (01) : 35 - 38
  • [27] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Cylindrical Threaded Implants Using Intraoperative Stereotactic Navigation
    Rajpal, Sharad
    Burneikiene, Sigita
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 122 : E1588 - E1591
  • [28] Long-Term Prospective Clinical And Radiographic Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Lateral Transiliac Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants
    Whang, Peter G.
    Darr, Emily
    Meyer, S. Craig
    Kovalsky, Don
    Frank, Clay
    Lockstadt, Harry
    Limoni, Robert
    Redmond, Andy J.
    Ploska, Philip
    Oh, Michael
    Chowdhary, Abhineet
    Cher, Daniel
    Hillen, Travis
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2019, 12 : 411 - 422
  • [29] Surgical and clinical efficacy of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery: a meta-analysis protocol
    Anton, Gustavo
    Beladi, Roxana
    Lawless, Michael
    Yoon, Elise
    Tong, Doris
    Soo, Teck M.
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09):
  • [30] Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs Nonsurgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: 12-Month Outcomes
    Polly, David W.
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Wine, Kathryn D.
    Whang, Peter G.
    Frank, Clay J.
    Harvey, Charles F.
    Lockstadt, Harry
    Glaser, John A.
    Limoni, Robert P.
    Sembrano, Jonathan N.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 77 (05) : 674 - 690