Literature DB >> 27652199

Two-Year Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs. Non-Surgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction.

David W Polly1, John Swofford2, Peter G Whang3, Clay J Frank4, John A Glaser5, Robert P Limoni6, Daniel J Cher7, Kathryn D Wine7, Jonathan N Sembrano8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is an important and underappreciated cause of chronic low back pain.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively and concurrently compare outcomes after surgical and non-surgical treatment for chronic SIJ dysfunction.
METHODS: One hundred and forty-eight subjects with SIJ dysfunction were randomly assigned to minimally invasive SIJ fusion with triangular titanium implants (SIJF, n = 102) or non-surgical management (NSM, n = 46). SIJ pain (measured with a 100-point visual analog scale, VAS), disability (measured with Oswestry Disability Index, ODI) and quality of life scores were collected at baseline and at scheduled visits to 24 months. Crossover from non-surgical to surgical care was allowed after the 6-month study visit was complete. Improvements in continuous measures were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance. The proportions of subjects with clinical improvement (SIJ pain improvement ≥20 points, ODI ≥15 points) and substantial clinical benefit (SIJ pain improvement ≥25 points or SIJ pain rating ≤35, ODI ≥18.8 points) were compared.
RESULTS: In the SIJF group, mean SIJ pain improved rapidly and was sustained (mean improvement of 55.4 points) at month 24. The 6-month mean change in the NSM group (12.2 points) was substantially smaller than that in the SIJF group (by 38.3 points, p<.0001 for superiority). By month 24, 83.1% and 82.0% received either clinical improvement or substantial clinical benefit in VAS SIJ pain score. Similarly, 68.2% and 65.9% had received clinical improvement or substantial clinical benefit in ODI score at month 24. In the NSM group, these proportions were <10% with non-surgical treatment only. Parallel changes were seen for EQ-5D and SF-36, with larger changes in the surgery group at 6 months compared to NSM. The rate of adverse events related to SIJF was low and only 3 subjects assigned to SIJF underwent revision surgery within the 24-month follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS: In this Level 1 multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial, minimally invasive SIJF with triangular titanium implants provided larger improvements in pain, disability and quality of life compared to NSM. Improvements after SIJF persisted to 24 months. This study was approved by a local or central IRB before any subjects were enrolled. All patients provided study-specific informed consent prior to participation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  minimally invasive surgery; randomized clinical trial; sacroiliac joint dysfunction; sacroiliac joint fusion

Year:  2016        PMID: 27652199      PMCID: PMC5027818          DOI: 10.14444/3028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  61 in total

1.  Periarticular corticosteroid treatment of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy.

Authors:  R Luukkainen; M Nissilä; E Asikainen; M Sanila; K Lehtinen; A Alanaatu; H Kautiainen
Journal:  Clin Exp Rheumatol       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.473

2.  A randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of lateral branch neurotomy for chronic sacroiliac joint pain.

Authors:  Nilesh Patel; Andrew Gross; Lora Brown; Gennady Gekht
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 3.750

3.  Does Level of Response to SI Joint Block Predict Response to SI Joint Fusion?

Authors:  David Polly; Daniel Cher; Peter G Whang; Clay Frank; Jonathan Sembrano
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-01-21

4.  Triangular Titanium Implants for Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial.

Authors:  Bradley S Duhon; Fabien Bitan; Harry Lockstadt; Don Kovalsky; Daniel Cher; Travis Hillen
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-04-20

5.  Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  John D Childs; Sara R Piva; Julie M Fritz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Long-term results of use of the anatomic medullary locking prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Engh; W J Culpepper; C A Engh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique.

Authors:  Christopher L Wise; Bruce E Dall
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-12

8.  The ability of multi-site, multi-depth sacral lateral branch blocks to anesthetize the sacroiliac joint complex.

Authors:  Paul Dreyfuss; Troy Henning; Niriksha Malladi; Barry Goldstein; Nikolai Bogduk
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.750

9.  Degeneration of sacroiliac joint after instrumented lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: a prospective cohort study over five-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kee-Yong Ha; Jun-Seok Lee; Ki-Won Kim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  A Retrospective Outcomes Study of 20 Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Patients.

Authors:  Carter E Beck; Saskia Jacobson; Eamon Thomasson
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2015-04-01
View more
  41 in total

1.  Triangular titanium implants for sacroiliac joint fusion.

Authors:  Nikolai G Rainov; Reinhard Schneiderhan; Volkmar Heidecke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Biomechanical analysis of the number of implants for the immediate sacroiliac joint fixation.

Authors:  Roxanne Dubé-Cyr; Carl-Éric Aubin; Isabelle Villemure; Pierre-Jean Arnoux
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-03-23

3.  Editor's Introduction: Update on Current Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Procedures: Implications for Appropriate Current Procedural Terminology Medical Coding.

Authors:  Morgan P Lorio
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12-29

4.  International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy 2020 Update-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion (for Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain): Coverage Indications, Limitations, and Medical Necessity.

Authors:  Morgan Lorio; Richard Kube; Ali Araghi
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12-29

5.  Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 2: An In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS-Coated Triangular Implants.

Authors:  Regina F MacBarb; Derek P Lindsey; Shane A Woods; Peggy A Lalor; Mukund I Gundanna; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06-01

6.  Sacroiliac joint pain: is the medical world aware enough of its existence? Why not considering sacroiliac joint fusion in the recalcitrant cases?

Authors:  Vicente Vanaclocha-Vanaclocha; Nieves Sáiz-Sapena; Leyre Vanaclocha
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

7.  Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. conservative management for chronic sacroiliac joint pain.

Authors:  David W Polly
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

8.  Is minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis the treatment of choice for sacroiliac joint dysfunction?

Authors:  M Burhan Janjua; Sumanth Reddy; William C Welch; Peter G Passias
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-09

9.  Mini-open sacroiliac joint fusion with direct bone grafting and minimally invasive fixation using intraoperative navigation.

Authors:  Andrew W Cleveland; Derek T Nhan; Michelle Akiyama; Christopher J Kleck; Andriy Noshchenko; Vikas V Patel
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2019-03

10.  Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: The Current Evidence.

Authors:  Christopher T Martin; Lucas Haase; Paul A Lender; David W Polly
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-02-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.