Literature DB >> 28934785

1-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Conservative Management vs. Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for Sacroiliac Joint Pain.

Julius Dengler Dengler1, Djaya Kools2, Robert Pflugmacher3, Alessandro Gasbarrini4, Domenico Prestamburgo5, Paolo Gaetani6, Eddie van Eeckhoven7, Daniel Cher8, Bengt Sturesson9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) emanating from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a common finding. Devices to fuse the SIJ are now commercially available, but high-quality evidence supporting their effectiveness is limited.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and effectiveness of conservative management (CM) to minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) in patients with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: One hundred three adults in spine clinics with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to CM (n = 51) or SIJF using triangular titanium implants (n = 52). CM consisted of optimization of medical therapy, individualized physiotherapy, and adequate information and reassurance as part of a multifactorial treatment. The primary outcome was the difference in change in self-rated LBP at 6 months using a 0 - 100 visual analog scale (VAS). Other effectiveness and safety endpoints, including leg pain, disability using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), quality of life using EQ-5D, and SIJ function using active straight leg raise test (ASLR), were assessed up to 12 months.
RESULTS: At 12 months, mean LBP improved by 41.6 VAS points in the SIJF group vs. 14.0 points in the CM group (treatment difference of 27.6 points, P < 0.0001). Mean ODI improved by 25.0 points in the SIJF group vs. 8.7 points in the CM group (P < 0.0001). Mean improvements in leg pain and EQ-5D scores were large after SIJF and superior to those after CM. CM patients were allowed to crossover to SIJF after 6 months. Patients who crossed to surgical treatment had no pre-crossover improvement in pain and ODI scores; after crossover, improvements were as large as those originally assigned to SIJF. One case of postoperative nerve impingement occurred in the surgical group. Two SIJF patients had recurrent pain attributed to possible device loosening and one had postoperative hematoma. In the CM group, one crossover surgery patient had recurrent pain requiring a revision surgery. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation was lack of blinding and the subjective nature of self-assessed outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic LBP originating from the SIJ, minimally invasive SIJF with triangular titanium implants was safe and more effective than CM in relieving pain, reducing disability, and improving patient function and quality of life. Our findings will help to inform decisions regarding its use as a treatment option in this patient population.Key words: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, pelvic girdle pain, randomized controlled trial, quality of life, spine implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28934785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Physician        ISSN: 1533-3159            Impact factor:   4.965


  19 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.  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

Review 3.  Beyond Placement of Pedicle Screws - New Applications for Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Multi-Surgeon, Single-Institution Experience.

Authors:  Troy Q Tabarestani; David Sykes; Kelly R Murphy; Timothy Y Wang; Christopher I Shaffrey; C Rory Goodwin; Phillip Horne; Khoi D Than; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-06-16

4.  Robot-assisted revision of sacroiliac joint fusion using a triangular titanium implant in an S2-alar-iliac trajectory: illustrative case.

Authors:  Matthew Triano; Islam Fayed; Faheem A Sandhu
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2021-07-05

5.  Radiculopathy with concomitant sacroiliac dysfunction and lumbosacral degenerative disease: illustrative case.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Oliver; Noah L Lessing; Harry M Mushlin; Joshua R Olexa; Kenneth M Crandall; Charles A Sansur
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2021-09-20

6.  Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion With Decortication: The EVoluSIon Clinical Study.

Authors:  Donald Kucharzyk; Kyle Colle; Christopher Boone; Ali Araghi
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02-25

7.  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

8.  Long-term prospective outcomes after minimally invasive trans-iliac sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants.

Authors:  Emily Darr; S Craig Meyer; Peter G Whang; Don Kovalsky; Clay Frank; Harry Lockstadt; Robert Limoni; Andy Redmond; Philip Ploska; Michael Y Oh; Daniel Cher; Abhineet Chowdhary
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2018-04-09

9.  Postmarket surveillance of 3D-printed implants for sacroiliac joint fusion.

Authors:  Daniel Cher; Kendrick Wroe; W Carlton Reckling; Scott Yerby
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2018-09-28

10.  Four-year outcomes after minimally invasive transiliac sacroiliac joint fusion with triangular titanium implants.

Authors:  Emily Darr; Daniel Cher
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2018-08-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.