Cargando…

Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Arnold Graham, Capobianco, Robyn, Cher, Daniel, Rudolf, Leonard, Sachs, Donald, Gundanna, Mukund, Kleiner, Jeffrey, Mody, Milan G, Shamie, A Nick
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3817574/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24172188
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14
_version_ 1782478092320636928
author Smith, Arnold Graham
Capobianco, Robyn
Cher, Daniel
Rudolf, Leonard
Sachs, Donald
Gundanna, Mukund
Kleiner, Jeffrey
Mody, Milan G
Shamie, A Nick
author_facet Smith, Arnold Graham
Capobianco, Robyn
Cher, Daniel
Rudolf, Leonard
Sachs, Donald
Gundanna, Mukund
Kleiner, Jeffrey
Mody, Milan G
Shamie, A Nick
author_sort Smith, Arnold Graham
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the introduction of minimally invasive options. To date there has been no direct comparison between open and MIS SI joint fusion. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who underwent SI joint fusion using either an open surgical (OS) technique using a combination of screws and cages or a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique with a series of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated triangular implants. Operative measures including surgical operating time, length of hospitalization and estimated blood loss (EBL) were collected along with demographics and medical history, surgical complications, and 12- and 24-month pain scores. Improvements in pain were compared after matching for age and gender and controlling for a history of lumbar spine fusion using repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Data were available for 263 patients treated by 7 surgeons; 149 patients treated with OS and 114 treated with MIS SI joint fusion. Compared to OS patients, MIS patients were on average 10 years older (mean age 57 vs. 46) and 69% of all patients were female. MIS operative measures of EBL, operating time and length of hospitalization were significantly lower than open surgery (p < 0.001). Pain relief, measured as change from baseline to 12 months in VAS pain rating, was 3.5 points lower in the MIS vs. OS group (-6.2 vs. -2.7 points, p < 0.001). When matched for age, gender and a history of prior lumbar spinal fusion, postoperative pain scores were on average 3.0 points (95% CI 2.1 – 4.0) lower in MIS vs. OS (rANOVA p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center comparative study, patients who underwent either OS or MIS SI joint fusion showed postoperative improvements in pain score. Compared to OS patients, patients who underwent MIS SI joint fusion had significantly greater pain relief and more favorable perioperative surgical measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3817574
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38175742013-11-06 Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes Smith, Arnold Graham Capobianco, Robyn Cher, Daniel Rudolf, Leonard Sachs, Donald Gundanna, Mukund Kleiner, Jeffrey Mody, Milan G Shamie, A Nick Ann Surg Innov Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the introduction of minimally invasive options. To date there has been no direct comparison between open and MIS SI joint fusion. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who underwent SI joint fusion using either an open surgical (OS) technique using a combination of screws and cages or a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique with a series of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated triangular implants. Operative measures including surgical operating time, length of hospitalization and estimated blood loss (EBL) were collected along with demographics and medical history, surgical complications, and 12- and 24-month pain scores. Improvements in pain were compared after matching for age and gender and controlling for a history of lumbar spine fusion using repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Data were available for 263 patients treated by 7 surgeons; 149 patients treated with OS and 114 treated with MIS SI joint fusion. Compared to OS patients, MIS patients were on average 10 years older (mean age 57 vs. 46) and 69% of all patients were female. MIS operative measures of EBL, operating time and length of hospitalization were significantly lower than open surgery (p < 0.001). Pain relief, measured as change from baseline to 12 months in VAS pain rating, was 3.5 points lower in the MIS vs. OS group (-6.2 vs. -2.7 points, p < 0.001). When matched for age, gender and a history of prior lumbar spinal fusion, postoperative pain scores were on average 3.0 points (95% CI 2.1 – 4.0) lower in MIS vs. OS (rANOVA p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center comparative study, patients who underwent either OS or MIS SI joint fusion showed postoperative improvements in pain score. Compared to OS patients, patients who underwent MIS SI joint fusion had significantly greater pain relief and more favorable perioperative surgical measures. BioMed Central 2013-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3817574/ /pubmed/24172188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14 Text en Copyright © 2013 Smith et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Smith, Arnold Graham
Capobianco, Robyn
Cher, Daniel
Rudolf, Leonard
Sachs, Donald
Gundanna, Mukund
Kleiner, Jeffrey
Mody, Milan G
Shamie, A Nick
Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
title Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
title_full Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
title_fullStr Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
title_short Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
title_sort open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3817574/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24172188
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14
work_keys_str_mv AT smitharnoldgraham openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT capobiancorobyn openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT cherdaniel openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT rudolfleonard openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT sachsdonald openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT gundannamukund openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT kleinerjeffrey openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT modymilang openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes
AT shamieanick openversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusionamulticentercomparisonofperioperativemeasuresandclinicaloutcomes