Cargando…

Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review

Introduction: Non-autoimmune sacroiliac joint pain contributes to nearly a quarter of low back pain patients. Non-surgical management fails to satisfy patients. A new minimally invasive technique for sacroiliac stabilization has been introduced, defying the traditional rules of fusion. The results o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amer, Mohammad H., Elnahal, Walid A., Khaled, Sherif A., Abdel-Kader, Khaled F.M., Cass, Michael A., Gibbs, James, Stott, Philip M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: EDP Sciences 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9595039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36282089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022042
_version_ 1784815556607606784
author Amer, Mohammad H.
Elnahal, Walid A.
Khaled, Sherif A.
Abdel-Kader, Khaled F.M.
Cass, Michael A.
Gibbs, James
Stott, Philip M.
author_facet Amer, Mohammad H.
Elnahal, Walid A.
Khaled, Sherif A.
Abdel-Kader, Khaled F.M.
Cass, Michael A.
Gibbs, James
Stott, Philip M.
author_sort Amer, Mohammad H.
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Non-autoimmune sacroiliac joint pain contributes to nearly a quarter of low back pain patients. Non-surgical management fails to satisfy patients. A new minimally invasive technique for sacroiliac stabilization has been introduced, defying the traditional rules of fusion. The results outside explanatory trials and in day-to-day practice have not been reported. Materials and methods: This case series includes 20 patients diagnosed with chronic sacroiliac pain resistant to conservative management for at least 6 months. The diagnosis was confirmed with a positive sacroiliac injection. Patients underwent stabilization using the iFuse(®) implant. Patients were followed up for a minimum of one year. The primary outcome was the functional outcomes, assessed using VAS, ODI, and SF36. Secondary procedure rates, complication rates, and radiological assessments of fusion were collected as secondary outcomes. Results: At one year, the mean VAS score improved from 81.25 ± 10.7 SD preoperatively to 52.5 ± 26.8, p-value 0.0013. The mean ODI improved from 54.8 ± 11.21 SD preoperatively to 41.315 ± 15.34, P value = 0.0079. The mean PCS and MCS of SF36 improved by 17 and 20 points, respectively. Only 55% of patients achieved the MCID for the VAS score. 35% of the cohort had secondary procedures. Discussion: Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion resulted in an improvement in mean functional scores with a wide dispersion. Patients not achieving MCID are patients with either a malpositioned implant, an associated lumbar pathology, or an inaccurate diagnosis. Our results are underwhelming compared to similar work but are still better than conservative cohorts in comparative studies. Conclusion: Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion can be used successfully in select patients. Attention to diagnosis and surgical technique can improve the reproducibility of results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9595039
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher EDP Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95950392022-11-02 Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review Amer, Mohammad H. Elnahal, Walid A. Khaled, Sherif A. Abdel-Kader, Khaled F.M. Cass, Michael A. Gibbs, James Stott, Philip M. SICOT J Original Article Introduction: Non-autoimmune sacroiliac joint pain contributes to nearly a quarter of low back pain patients. Non-surgical management fails to satisfy patients. A new minimally invasive technique for sacroiliac stabilization has been introduced, defying the traditional rules of fusion. The results outside explanatory trials and in day-to-day practice have not been reported. Materials and methods: This case series includes 20 patients diagnosed with chronic sacroiliac pain resistant to conservative management for at least 6 months. The diagnosis was confirmed with a positive sacroiliac injection. Patients underwent stabilization using the iFuse(®) implant. Patients were followed up for a minimum of one year. The primary outcome was the functional outcomes, assessed using VAS, ODI, and SF36. Secondary procedure rates, complication rates, and radiological assessments of fusion were collected as secondary outcomes. Results: At one year, the mean VAS score improved from 81.25 ± 10.7 SD preoperatively to 52.5 ± 26.8, p-value 0.0013. The mean ODI improved from 54.8 ± 11.21 SD preoperatively to 41.315 ± 15.34, P value = 0.0079. The mean PCS and MCS of SF36 improved by 17 and 20 points, respectively. Only 55% of patients achieved the MCID for the VAS score. 35% of the cohort had secondary procedures. Discussion: Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion resulted in an improvement in mean functional scores with a wide dispersion. Patients not achieving MCID are patients with either a malpositioned implant, an associated lumbar pathology, or an inaccurate diagnosis. Our results are underwhelming compared to similar work but are still better than conservative cohorts in comparative studies. Conclusion: Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion can be used successfully in select patients. Attention to diagnosis and surgical technique can improve the reproducibility of results. EDP Sciences 2022-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9595039/ /pubmed/36282089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022042 Text en © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Amer, Mohammad H.
Elnahal, Walid A.
Khaled, Sherif A.
Abdel-Kader, Khaled F.M.
Cass, Michael A.
Gibbs, James
Stott, Philip M.
Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
title Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
title_full Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
title_fullStr Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
title_full_unstemmed Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
title_short Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
title_sort minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion, a case series, and a literature review
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9595039/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36282089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022042
work_keys_str_mv AT amermohammadh minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview
AT elnahalwalida minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview
AT khaledsherifa minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview
AT abdelkaderkhaledfm minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview
AT cassmichaela minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview
AT gibbsjames minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview
AT stottphilipm minimallyinvasivesacroiliacfusionacaseseriesandaliteraturereview