The effect of implant placement on sacroiliac joint range of motion: posterior versus transarticular

Biomechanical Effects of Multi-segment Fixation on Lumbar Spine and Sacroiliac Joints: A Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Spine fixation surgery affects the biomechanical environment in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), which may lead to the SIJ pain or degeneration after surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of the number and position of fixed segments on the SIJs and provide references for surgeons to plan fixation levels and enhance surgical outcomes.

METHODS

The intact lumbar-pelvis finite element (FE) models and 11 fixation FE models with different number and position of fixed segments were developed based on CT images. A 400N follower load and 10° range of motion (ROM) of the spine were applied to the superior endplate of L1 to simulate the flexion, extension, bending and torsion motion after surgery. The peak stress on the SIJs, lumbar intervertebral discs, screws and rods were calculated to evaluate the biomechanical effects of fixation procedures.

RESULTS

With the lowermost instrumented vertebra (LIV) of L5 or S1, the peak stress on SIJs increased with the number of fixed segments increasing. The flexion motion led to the greater von Mises stress on SIJ compared with other load conditions. Compared with the intact model, peak stress on all fixed intervertebral discs was reduced in the models with less than three fixed segments, and it increased in the models with more than three fixed segments. The stress on the SIJ was extremely high in the models with all segments from L1 to L5 fixed, including L1-L5, L1-S1 and L1-S2 fixation models. The stress on the segment adjacent to the fixed segments was significant higher compared to that in the intact model. The peak stress on rods and screws also increased with the number of fixed segments increasing in the flexion, extension and bending motion, and the bending and flexion motions led to the greater von Mises stress on SIJs.

CONCLUSION

Short-term fixation (≤2 segments) did not increase the stress on the SIJs significantly, while long-term segment fixation (≥4 segments) led to greater stress on the SIJs especially when all the L1-L5 segments were fixed. Unfixed lumbar segments compensated the ROM loss of the fixed segments, and the preservation of lumbar spine mobility would reduce the risks of SIJ degeneration.

A New Approach to the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain and First Patient-Reported Outcomes Using a Novel Arthrodesis Technique for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion

Purpose

To report the development of a new sacroiliac joint (SIJ) arthrodesis system that can be used for isolated fusion of the SIJ and, unlike known implant systems, in combination with lumbar instrumentation or as an alternative to existing sacropelvic fixation (SPF) methods, and the patient-reported outcomes in two cases.

Materials and Methods

After a comprehensive review of 207 pelvic computed tomography (CT) datasets, an implant body was designed. Its shape was modeled based on the SIJ recess. A screw anchored in the ilium secures the position of the implant and allows connection to lumbar instrumentation. Two patients with confirmed SIJ syndrome underwent surgery with the anatomically adapted implant. They were evaluated preoperatively, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Million Visual Analogue Scale (MVAS), Roland Morris Score (RMS), reduction of SIJ/leg pain, and work status were assessed. Bony fusion of the SIJ was evaluated by radiographs and CT 12 months after the procedure.

Results

Analysis of pelvic CT data revealed a wedge-shaped implant body in four different sizes. In the two patients, VAS decreased from 88 to 33 points, ODI improved from 67 to 35%, MVAS decreased from 80 to 36%, and RMS decreased from 18 to 9 points 12 months after surgery. SIJ pain reduction was 80% and 90%, respectively. Follow-up CT and radiographs showed solid bony integration.

Conclusion

The implant used takes into account the unique anatomy of the SIJ and also meets the requirements of a true arthrodesis. Initial results in two patients are promising. Biomechanical and clinical studies will have to show whether the considerable theoretical advantages of the new implant system over existing SIJ implants - in particular the possibility of connection to a lumbar stabilization system - and SPFs can be put into practice.

Posterior intra-articular fixation stabilizes both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints: a cadaveric study and comparison to lateral trans-articular fixation literature

BACKGROUND

Posterior and lateral techniques have been described as approaches to sacroiliac joint arthrodesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the stabilizing effects of a novel posterior stabilization implant and technique to a previously published lateral approach in a cadaveric multidirectional bending model. We hypothesized that both approaches would have an equivalent stabilizing effect in flexion-extension and that the posterior approach would exhibit better performance in lateral bending and axial rotation. We further hypothesized that unilateral and bilateral posterior fixation would stabilize both the primary and secondary joints.

METHODS

Ranges of motion (RoMs) of six cadaveric sacroiliac joints were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 N-m applied moment in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions.

RESULTS

Intact RoMs were equivalent between both samples. For the posterior intra-articular technique, unilateral fixation reduced the RoMs of both primary and secondary joints in all loading planes (flexion-extension RoM by 45%, lateral bending RoM by 47%, and axial RoM by 33%), and bilateral fixation maintained this stabilizing effect in both joints (flexion-extension at 48%, lateral bending at 53%, and axial rotation at 42%). For the lateral trans-articular technique, only bilateral fixation reduced mean RoM of both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints, and only under flexion-extension loads (60%).

CONCLUSION

During flexion-extension, the posterior approach is equivalent to the lateral approach, while producing superior stabilization during lateral bend and axial rotation.

Computed tomography Osteoabsorptiometry: Review of bone density, mechanical strength of material and clinical application

Computed Tomography (CT) imaging is an effective non-invasive examination. It is widely used in the diagnosis of fractures, arthritis, tumor, and some anatomical characteristics of patients. The density value (Hounsfield unit, HU) of a material in computed tomography can be the same for materials with varying elemental compositions. This value depends on the mass density of the material and the degree of X-ray attenuation. Computed Tomography Osteoabsorptiometry (CTOAM) imaging technology is developed on the basis of CT imaging technology. By applying pseudo-color image processing to the articular surface, it is used to analyze the distribution of bone mineralization under the articular cartilage, evaluate the position of prosthesis implantation, track the progression of osteoarthritis, and determine the joint injury prognosis. Furthermore, this technique was combined with indentation testing to discuss the relationship between the high bone density area of the articular surface, the mechanical strength of the bone, and the anchorage stability of the implant, in addition to the study of the relationship between mechanical strength and bone density. This narrative study discusses the pre- and postoperative evaluation of medical device implantation position, orthopedic surgery, and the clinical treatment of bone injury and degeneration. It also discusses the research status of CTOAM technology in image post-processing engineering and the relationship between bone material and mechanical strength.

Minimally Invasive and Conservative Interventions for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Review of Recent Literature

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is responsible for approximately 15-25% of reported back pain. Patients with SIJ pain report some of the lowest quality of life scores of any chronic disease. Understanding of the physiology and pathology of the SI joint has changed dramatically over the years, and SI joint pain and injury can now be thought of in two broad categories: traumatic and atraumatic. Both categories of SI joint injury are thought to be caused by inflammation or injury of the joint capsule, ligaments, or subchondral bone in the SI joint. Treatment of SI joint pain usually involves a multi-pronged approach, utilizing both, multi-modal medical pain control and interventional pain/surgical techniques such as steroid injections, radiofrequency nerve ablation, and minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis. Though conservative management through multi-modal pain control and physical therapy have their role as first line therapies, an increasing body of evidence supports the use of minimally invasive procedures, both as adjuvant treatments to conservative management and as second line therapies for patient's that fail first line treatment.

Biomechanical Stability of Primary and Revision Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Devices: A Cadaveric Study

STUDY DESIGN

An in vitro biomechanics study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of triangular titanium implants in providing mechanical stabilization to a sacroiliac joint with primary and revision sized implants.

METHODS

Ten lumbopelvic cadaveric specimens were tested in 4 stages: intact, pubic symphysis sectioned, primary, and simulated revision. Primary treatment was performed using 3 laterally placed triangular titanium implants. To simulate revision conditions before and after bone ingrowth and ongrowth on the implants, 7.5-mm and 10.75-mm implants were randomly assigned to one side of each specimen during the simulated revision stage. A 6 degrees of freedom spinal loading frame was used to load specimens in 4 directions: flexion extension, lateral bending, axial torsion, and axial compression. Biomechanical evaluation was based on measures of sacroiliac joint rotational and translational motion.

RESULTS

Both primary and revision implants showed the ability to reduce translational motion to a level significantly lower than the intact condition when loaded in axial compression. Simulated revision conditions showed no statistically significant differences compared with the primary implant condition, with the exception of flexion-extension range of motion where motions associated with the revised condition were significantly lower. Comparison of rotational and translation motions associated with the 7.5- and 10.75-mm implants showed no significant differences between the treatment conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that implantation of laterally placed triangular titanium implants significantly reduces the motion of a sacroiliac joint using either the primary and revision sized implants. No statistically significant differences were detected when comparing the efficacy of primary, 7.5-mm revision, or 10.75-mm revision implants.

A Cadaver-Based Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel Posterior Approach to Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Analysis of the Fixation and Center of the Instantaneous Axis of Rotation

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the stabilizing effect of a posterior joint fixation technique using a novel cortical allograft implant in unilateral and bilateral fixation constructs. We hypothesize that fixation would reduce the joint's range of motion during flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending loads. We also hypothesize that fixation would shift the center of the instantaneous axis of rotation during the predominant flexion-extension motions towards the implant's location, and that this shift would be correlated with the reduction in flexion-extension range of motion.

Materials and Methods

Six cadaveric sacroiliac joint specimens were tested under intact, unilateral fixation, and bilateral fixation conditions. The total range of motion (ROM) of the sacroiliac joint in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were evaluated by an optical tracking system, in a multidirectional flexibility pure moment model, between ± 7.5 Nm applied moment loads. The centers of the instantaneous axis of rotation (cIAR) of the sacroiliac joint were evaluated during flexion-extension loading. A correlation analysis was performed between the ROM reduction in flexion-extension upon implantation and shift of the cIAR to the graft implantation site.

Results

Unilateral and bilateral fixations generated sacroiliac joint ROM reductions in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation motions. Fixation shifted the cIAR to the graft implantation site. Reduction in the total range of motion had a moderate correlation with the shift of the cIAR.

Conclusion

Our novel posterior approach presents a multifaceted mechanism for stabilizing the joint: first, by the reduction of the total range of motion in all planes of motion; second, by shifting the centers of the instantaneous axis of rotation towards the implant's location in the predominant plane of motion, ensuring little to no motion at the implantation site, thus promoting fusion in this region.

Instrumentation of the sacroiliac joint with cylindrical threaded implants: A detailed finite element study of patient characteristics affecting fixation performance

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known pain generator that, in severe cases, may require surgical fixation to reduce intra-articular displacements and allow for arthrodesis. The objective of this computational study was to analyze how the number of implants affected SIJ stabilization with patient-specific characteristics such as the pelvic geometry and bone quality. Detailed finite element models were developed to account for three pelvises of differing anatomy. Each model was tested with a normal and low bone density (LD) under two types of loading: compression only and compression with flexion and extension moments. These models were instrumented with one to three cylindrical, threaded and fenestrated implants through a posterior oblique trajectory, requiring less muscle dissection than the more common lateral trajectory used with triangular implants. Compared with the noninstrumented pelvis, the change in range of motion (ROM) and stress distribution were used to characterize joint stabilization. Noninstrumented mobility ranged from 0.86 to 2.55 mm and from 1.37° to 6.11°. Across patient-specific characteristics, the ROM reduction with one implant varied from 3% to 21% for vertical and 15% to 47% for angular displacements. With two implants, the ROM reduction ranged from 12% to 41% for vertical and from 28% to 61% for angular displacements. Three implants, however, did not further improve the joint stability (14% to 42% for vertical and 32% to 63% for angular displacements). With respect to patient characteristics, an LD led to a decreased stabilization and a higher volume of stressed bone (>75% of yield stress). A better understanding of how patient characteristics affect the implant performance could help improve surgical planning of sacroiliac arthrodesis.

Biomechanics of a laterally placed sacroiliac joint fusion device supplemental to S2 alar-iliac fixation in a long-segment adult spinal deformity construct: a cadaveric study of stability and strain distribution

OBJECTIVE

S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively enhances stability in long-segment constructs. Although S2AI fixation provides a single transarticular sacroiliac joint fixation (SIJF) point, additional fixation points may provide greater stability and attenuate screw and rod strain. The objectives of this study were to evaluate changes in stability and pedicle screw and rod strain with extended distal S2AI fixation and with supplemental bilateral integration of two sacroiliac joint fusion devices implanted using a traditional minimally invasive surgical approach.

METHODS

Eight L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests under 4 conditions: 1) intact (pure moment loading only); 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod with L5-S1 interbody fusion; 3) added S2AI screws; and 4) added bilateral laterally placed SIJF. Range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw-bending moment (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with S1 fixation, S2AI fixation significantly reduced L5-S1 ROM in right lateral bending by 50% (0.11°, p = 0.049) and in compression by 39% (0.22°, p = 0.003). Compared with fixation ending at S1, extending fixation with S2AI significantly decreased sacroiliac joint ROM by 52% (0.28°, p = 0.02) in flexion, by 65% (0.48°, p = 0.04) in extension, by 59% (0.76°, p = 0.02) in combined flexion-extension, and by 36% (0.09°, p = 0.02) in left axial rotation. The addition of S2AI screws reduced S1 screw-bending moment during flexion (0.106 Nm [43%], p = 0.046). With S2AI fixation, posterior L5-S1 primary rod strain increased by 124% (159 μE, p = 0.002) in flexion, by 149% (285 μE, p = 0.02) in left axial rotation, and by 99% (254 μE, p = 0.04) in right axial rotation. Compared with S2AI fixation, the addition of SIJF reduced L5-S1 strain during right axial rotation by 6% (28 μE, p = 0.04) and increased L5-S1 strain in extension by 6% (28 μE, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-segment constructs ending with S2AI screws created a more stable construct than those ending with S1 screws, reducing lumbosacral and sacroiliac joint motion and S1 screw-bending moment in flexion. These benefits, however, were paired with increased rod strain at the lumbosacral junction. The addition of SIJF to constructs ending at S2AI did not significantly change SI joint ROM or S1 screw bending and reduced S2AI screw bending in compression. SIJF further decreased L5-S1 rod strain in axial rotation and increased it in extension.

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

PURPOSE

The fusion of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is the last treatment option for chronic pain resulting from sacroiliitis. With the various implant systems available, there are different possible surgical strategies in terms of the type and number of implants and trajectories. The aim was to quantify the effect of the number of cylindrical threaded implants on SIJ stabilization.

METHODS

Six cadaveric pelvises were embedded in resin simulating a double-leg stance. Compression loads were applied to the sacral plate. The pelvises were tested non-instrumented and instrumented progressively with up to three cylindrical threaded implants (12-mm diameter, 60-mm length) with a posterior oblique trajectory. Vertical (VD) and angular (AD) displacements of the SIJ were measured locally using high-precision cameras and digital image correlation.

RESULTS

Compared to the non-instrumented initial state, instrumentation with one implant significantly decreased the VD (- 24% ± 15%, p = 0.028), while the AD decreased on average by - 9% (± 15%; p = 0.345). When compared to the one-implant configuration, adding a second implant further statistically decreased VD (- 10% ± 7%, p = 0.046) and AD (- 19% ± 15, p = 0.046). Adding a third implant did not lead to additional stabilization for VD nor AD (p > 0.5).

CONCLUSION

Compared to the non-instrumented initial state, the two-implant configuration reduces both vertical and angular displacements the most, while minimizing the number of implants.

Biomechanical effects of a novel posteriorly placed sacroiliac joint fusion device integrated with traditional lumbopelvic long-construct instrumentation

OBJECTIVE

S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw fixation effectively ensures stability and enhances fusion in long-segment constructs. Nevertheless, pelvic fixation is associated with a high rate of mechanical failure. Because of the transarticular nature of the S2AI screw, adding a second point of fixation may provide additional stability and attenuate strains. The objective of the study was to evaluate changes in stability and strain with the integration of a sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion device, implanted through a novel posterior SI approach, supplemental to posterior long-segment fusion.

METHODS

L1-pelvis human cadaveric specimens underwent pure moment (7.5 Nm) and compression (400 N) tests in the following conditions: 1) intact, 2) L2-S1 pedicle screw and rod fixation with L5-S1 interbody fusion, 3) added S2AI screws, and 4) added bilateral SI joint fixation (SIJF). The range of motion (ROM), rod strain, and screw bending moments (S1 and S2AI) were analyzed.

RESULTS

S2AI fixation decreased L2-S1 ROM in flexion-extension (p ≤ 0.04), L5-S1 ROM in flexion-extension and compression (p ≤ 0.004), and SI joint ROM during flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.03) compared with S1 fixation. SI joint ROM was significantly less with SIJF in place than with the intact joint, S1, and S2AI fixation in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p ≤ 0.01). The S1 screw bending moment decreased following S2AI fixation by as much as 78% in extension, but with statistical significance only in right axial rotation (p = 0.03). Extending fixation to S2AI significantly increased the rod strain at L5-S1 during flexion, axial rotation, and compression (p ≤ 0.048). SIJF was associated with a slight increase in rod strain versus S2AI fixation alone at L5-S1 during left lateral bending (p = 0.048). Compared with the S1 condition, fixation to S2AI increased the mean rod strain at L5-S1 during compression (p = 0.048). The rod strain at L5-S1 was not statistically different with SIJF compared with S2AI fixation (p ≥ 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Constructs ending with an S2AI screw versus an S1 screw tended to be more stable, with reduced SI joint motion. S2AI fixation decreased the S1 screw bending moments compared with fixation ending at S1. These benefits were paired with increased rod strain at L5-S1. Supplementation of S2AI fixation with SIJF implants provided further reductions (approximately 30%) in the sagittal plane and lateral bending SI joint motion compared with fixation ending at the S2AI position. This stability was not paired with significant changes in rod or screw strains.

Sacroiliac joint stabilization using implants provide better fixation in females compared to males: a finite element analysis

PURPOSE

This study's objective was to assess biomechanical parameters across fused and contralateral sacroiliac joints (SIJs) and implants during all spinal motions for both sexes. Various SIJ implant devices on the market are used in minimally invasive surgeries. These implants are placed across the joint using different surgical approaches. The biomechanical effects of fusion surgical techniques in males and females have not been studied.

METHODS

The validated finite element models of a male, and a female spine-pelvis-femur were unilaterally instrumented across the SIJ using three screws for two SIJ implants, half threaded and fully threaded screws placed laterally and posteriorly to the joint, respectively.

RESULTS

Motion and peak stress data at the SIJs showed that the female model exhibited lower stresses and higher reduction in motion at the contralateral SIJ in all motions than the male model predictions with 84% and 71% reductions in motion and stresses across the SIJ.

CONCLUSION

Implants exhibited higher stresses in the female model compared to the male model. However, chances of SIJ implant failure in the female patients are still minimal, based on the calculated factor of safety which is still very high. Both lateral and posterior surgical approaches were effective in both sexes; however, the lateral approach may provide a better biomechanical response, especially for females. Moreover, implant design characteristics did not make a difference in the implants' biomechanical performance. SIJ stabilization was primarily provided by the implants which were the farthest from the sacrum rotation center.

Systematic review of sacroiliac joint motion and the effect of screw fixation

BACKGROUND

Pelvic injuries that disrupt the sacroiliac joints often require surgical intervention to restore stability. Quantitative characterization of sacroiliac motion in response to physiologic loading provides important metrics of adequate fixation in the evaluation of newly emerged fixation techniques. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate biomechanical evidence on the motion of the sacroiliac joint in its normal, destabilized, and stabilized states.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database for studies available until June 2020 using keywords: sacroiliac, biomechanic*, and fixation. Publications of any in vivo or in vitro biomechanical study that included measurements of the range of motion at the sacroiliac joint were considered.

FINDINGS

We identified and screened 176 total records, and 13 articles of them met inclusion criteria and were used in this review. The average sacroiliac joint range of motion of the intact pelvis was 1.88° in flexion/extension, 0.85° in lateral bending, 1.26° in axial rotation. Of the 13 studies, four reported sacroiliac motion from a destabilized state, while seven reported the motion after stabilization. A forest plot of the stabilized data set in flexion/extension showed that while the heterogeneity was poor, the weighted effect size of the changes from the intact state to the stabilized state was 0.0%.

INTERPRETATION

Quantitative evidence on sacroiliac joint motion relating to pelvic injuries or fixation is limited. Our results indicate that the pooled intact range of motion from the literature may serve as a viable reference to quantify the effectiveness of new stabilization techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, systematic review.

STUDY TYPE

Therapeutic- investigating the results of a treatment.

Quantitative evaluation of the sacroiliac joint fixation in stress reduction on both sacroiliac joint cartilage and ligaments: A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

The sacroiliac joint fixation is the last resort for patients with prolonged and severe joint pain. Although the clinical results of anterior fixations are conclusive, there exist several inevitable drawbacks with the surgical method such as the difficulty performing the surgery due to the presence of many organs. The posterior fixation technique has thus been developed to overcome those inconveniences. This study aims to assess in silico the mechanical environment following posterior and anterior fixations, focusing on stresses in both the sacroiliac cartilage and dorsal ligamentous part, as well as loads experienced by the pelvic ligaments.

METHODS

Sacroiliac joint cartilage, dorsal ligamentous part stresses and pelvic ligaments loads were evaluated with three types of fixation models. A vertical load of 600 N was applied, equally distributed via both acetabula when standing and sitting.

FINDINGS

Results show that the anterior sacroiliac joint fixation reduced von Mises stresses in the cartilage and dorsal ligamentous part and decreased ligaments loads more extensively than the posterior fixation when compared to the untreated model as a reference. However, the posterior fixation still remains the desirable and preferential treatment.

INTERPRETATION

The anterior sacroiliac joint fixation showed better performances compared to the posterior one; however, the lower invasive aspect of the latter is a fundamental clinical advantage which also has the possibility to be improved by considering various screws and cages configurations. This study provides a beneficial suggestion to improve the current fixation technique.

In-vitro 3D Analysis of Sacroiliac Joint Kinematics: Primary and Coupled Motions

STUDY DESIGN

An in-vitro biomechanical study of human cadaver sacroiliac joints.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the native motion of the SIJ within the context of spinal kinematics and spinal implant evaluation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Increasing attention has been given to the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) as a source of low back pain, despite its limited range of motion. We sought to characterize the rotational and translational motion in each axis utilizing standard pure moment flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) testing.

METHODS

Sixteen sacroiliac joints were evaluated from eight lumbosacral cadaver specimens (six females, two males) from subjects aged 28 to 57 years (mean age 46.8) with body mass index (BMI) 22 to 36 (mean BMI 30). Single leg stance was modeled by clamping the blocks on one ischium in a vise and letting the contralateral ischium hang freely. Pure moment loading was applied in FE, right/left AR, and right/left LB. Relative motions were collected with infrared markers.

RESULTS

The on-axis ratio was significantly lower in LB than in FE (P = 0.012) and in AR (P = 0.017). The rotation deviation angle measured 13.9 ± 9.1° in FE, 17.1 ± 8.7° in AR, and 35.7 ± 25.7° in LB. In LB the rotational deviation angle is significantly higher than both FE and AR (P = 0.003 and P = 0.011, respectively). In-plane translation was significantly higher (P = 0.005) in FE loading than in LB loading.

CONCLUSION

A nontrivial amount of rotation and translation occurred out of the expected axis of motion. The largest amount of off-axis rotation was observed in lateral bending. Relative to resultant translation, in-plane translation was lowest in lateral bending. Our results indicate that rotation of the SIJ is not fully described with the in-plane metrics which are normally reported in evaluation of fusion devices. Future studies of the SIJ may need to consider including off-axis rotation measurements when describing SIJ kinematics.Level of Evidence: 5.

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

The index 2014 International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy Statement-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion-was generated out of necessity to provide an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)-based background and emphasize tools to ensure correct diagnosis. A timely ICD-10-based 2016 update provided a granular threshold selection with improved level of evidence and a more robust and relevant database (Appendix Table A1). As procedures and treatment options have evolved, this 2020 update reviews and analyzes the expanding evidence base and provides guidance relating to differences between the lateral and dorsal surgical procedures for minimally invasive surgical sacroiliac joint fusion.

Comparative analysis of the lateral and posterolateral trajectories for fixation of the sacroiliac joint-a cadaveric study

Background

A number of minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion solutions for placing implants exist, with reduced post-operative pain and improved outcomes compared to open procedures. The objective of this study was to compare two MIS SI joint fusion approaches that place implants directly across the joint by comparing the ilium and sacrum bone characteristics and SI joint separation along the implant trajectories.

Methods

Nine cadaveric specimens (n = 9) were CT scanned and the left and right ilium and sacrum were segmented. The bone density, bone volume fraction, and SI joint gap distance were calculated along lateral and posterolateral trajectories and compared using analysis of variance between the two orientations.

Results

Iliac bone density, indicated by the mean Hounsfield Unit, was significantly greater for each lateral trajectory compared to posterolateral. The volume of cortical bone in the ilium was greater for the middle lateral trajectory compared to all others and for the top and bottom lateral trajectories compared to both posterolateral trajectories. Cortical density was greater in the ilium for all lateral trajectories compared to posterolateral. The bone fraction was significantly greater in all lateral trajectories compared to posterolateral in the ilium. No differences in cortical volume, cortical density, or cancellous density were found between trajectories in the sacrum. The ilium was significantly greater in density compared with the sacrum when compared irrespective of trajectory (p < 0.001). The posterolateral trajectories had a significantly larger SI joint gap than the lateral trajectories (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Use of the lateral approach for minimally invasive SI fusion allows the implant to interact with bone across a significantly smaller joint space. This interaction with increased cortical bone volume and density may afford better fixation with a lower risk of pull-out or implant loosening when compared to the posterolateral approach.

Biomechanics of the Sacroiliac Joint: Surgical Treatments

BACKGROUND

Fixation is one of the most common surgical techniques for the treatment of chronic pain originating from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Many studies have investigated the clinical outcomes and biomechanics of various SIJ surgical procedures. However, the biomechanical literature points to several issues that need to be further explored, especially for the devices used in minimally invasive surgery of the SIJ. This study (part II) aims to assess biomechanical literature to understand the existing information as it relates to efficacies of the surgical techniques and the gaps in the knowledge base. Part I reviewed basic anatomy and mechanics of the SIJ joint, including difference between males and females, and causes of pain emanating from these joints.

METHODS

A thorough literature review was performed pertaining to studies related to SIJ fixation techniques and the biomechanical outcomes of the surgical procedures.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies matched the search criteria and were considered for the review. These articles predominantly pertained to the biomechanical outcomes of the minimally invasive surgery with different instrumentation systems and surgical settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIJ is one of the most overlooked sources of lower back pain. The joint is responsible for the pain in 15% to 30% of people suffering from lower back pain. Various studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of different surgical procedures intended to improve the pain and quality of life following surgery. The data show that these techniques are indeed effective. However, clinical studies have raised several issues, like optimal number and positioning of implants, unilateral versus bilateral placements, adjacent segment disease, implant designs, and optimal location of implants with respect to variations in bone density across the SIJ. Biomechanical studies using in vitro and in silico techniques have addressed some of these issues. Studies also point out the need for additional investigations for a better understanding of the underlying mechanics for the improved long-term surgical outcomes. Further long-term clinical follow-ups are essential as well. This review presents pertinent findings.

Biomechanical analysis of two insertion sites for the fixation of the sacroiliac joint via an oblique lateral approach

BACKGROUND

The sacroiliac joint is an important source of low back pain. In severe cases, sacroiliac joint fusion is used to reduce pain, but revision rates can reach 30%. The lack of initial mechanical stability may lead to pseudarthrosis, thus not alleviating the patient's symptoms. This could be due to the damage induced to the interosseous ligament during implant insertion. Decoupling instrumentation steps (drilling-tapping and implant insertion) would allow verifying this hypothesis. Moreover, no biomechanical studies have been published on sacroiliac joint fixation with an oblique lateral approach, while it has important clinical advantages over the direct lateral approach.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric human pelves with both ischia embedded were tested in three sequential states: intact, drilled-tapped and instrumented with one cylindrical threaded implant with an oblique lateral trajectory. Specimens were assigned one of two insertion sites (distal point; near the posterior superior iliac spine, and proximal point; anterosuperior to the distal point) and tested in compression and flexion-extension. Vertical and angular displacements of the sacroiliac joint were measured locally using digital image correlation methods.

FINDINGS

In compression, instrumentation significantly reduced vertical displacements (17% (SD 22%), P = 0.04) but no difference was found for angular displacements or flexion-extension loads (P > 0.05). Drilling-tapping did not change the stability of the sacroiliac joint (P > 0.05); there was no statistical difference between the insertion sites (P > 0.05).

INTERPRETATIONS

Insertion of one implant through either the distal or proximal insertion site with an oblique lateral approach significantly reduced vertical displacements of the sacroiliac joint in compression, a predominant load of this joint.

RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE

Polytechnique Montreal: CÉR-1617-30.

What do we know about the biomechanics of the sacroiliac joint and of sacropelvic fixation? A literature review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the general knowledge about the biomechanics of the sacroiliac joint and sacropelvic fixation techniques. Additionally, this study aims to support biomechanical investigations in defining experimental protocols as well as numerical modeling of the sacropelvic structures. The sacroiliac joint is characterized by a large variability of shape and ranges of motion among individuals. Although the ligament network and the anatomical features strongly limit the joint movements, sacroiliac displacements and rotations are not negligible. Currently available treatments for sacroiliac joint dysfunction include physical therapy, steroid injections, Radio-frequency ablation of specific neural structures, and open or minimally invasive SIJ fusion. In long posterior construct, the most common solutions are the iliac screws and the S2 alar - iliac screws, whereas for the joint fixation alone, mini - invasive alternative system can be used. Several studies reported the clinical outcomes of the different techniques and investigated the biomechanical stability of the relative construct, but the effect of sacropelvic fixation techniques on the joint flexibility and on the stress generated into the bone is still unknown. In our opinion, more biomechanical analyses on the behavior of the sacroiliac joint may be performed in order to better predict the risk of failure or instability of the joint.

Effects on hip stress following sacroiliac joint fixation: A finite element study

For those patients who suffer from low back pain generated by the sacroiliac (SI) joint, fusion of the SI joint has proven to be an effective means of stabilizing it and reducing pain. Though it has shown promise, SI joint fusion raises clinical questions regarding its effect on neighboring joints such as the hip. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine the effects of SI joint fixation on the hip. A finite element spine-sacroiliac-hip (SSIH) model was developed and its functionality was verified against SI joint range of motion (ROM) and hip contact stress, respectively. The intact model was fixed in double leg stance at the distal femora, and loading was applied at the lumbar spine to simulate stance, flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Functionality was confirmed by measuring and comparing SI joint ROM and contact stress and area at the hip with data from the literature. Following verification of the intact SSIH model, both unilateral and bilateral SI joint fixation were modeled; hip contact stress and area were compared to the intact state. Average hip contact stress was ~2 MPa, with most motions resulting in changes less than 5% relative to intact; contact area changed less than 10% for any motion. Clinical significance: these results demonstrated that SI joint fixation with triangular titanium implants imparted little change in stress at the hip, which suggests that the risk of developing adjacent segment disease is likely low. Future clinical studies may be executed to confirm the results of this computational study.

Biomechanics of sacropelvic fixation: a comprehensive finite element comparison of three techniques

PURPOSE

Sacropelvic fixation is frequently used in combination with thoracolumbar instrumentation for complex deformity correction and is commonly associated with pseudoarthrosis, implant failure and loosening. This study compared pedicle screw fixation (PED) with three different sacropelvic fixation techniques, namely iliac screws (IL), S2 alar-iliac screws (S2AI) and laterally placed triangular titanium implants (SI), all in combination with lumbosacral instrumentation, accounting for implant micromotion.

METHODS

Existing finite element models of pelvis-L5 of three patients including lumbopelvic instrumentation were utilized. Moments of 7.5 Nm in the three directions combined with a 500 N compressive load were simulated. Measured metrics included flexibility, instrumentation stresses and bone-implant interface loads.

RESULTS

Fixation effectively reduced the sacroiliac flexibility. Compared to PED, IL and S2AI induced a reduction in peak stresses in the S1 pedicle screws. Rod stresses were mostly unaffected by S2AI and SI, but IL demonstrated a stress increase. In comparison with a previous work depicting full osteointegration, SI was found to have similar instrumentation stresses as those due to PED.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixation with triangular implants did not result in stress increase on the lumbosacral instrumentation, likely due to the lack of connection with the posterior rods. IL and S2AI had a mild protective effect on S1 pedicle screws in terms of stresses and bone-implant loads. IL resulted in an increase in the rod stresses. A comparison between this study and previous work incorporating full osteointegration demonstrates how these results may be applied clinically to better understand the effects of different treatments on patient outcomes. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

A biomechanical investigation of the sacroiliac joint in the setting of lumbosacral fusion: impact of pelvic fixation versus sacroiliac joint fixation

OBJECTIVE

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a known source of low-back pain. Randomized clinical trials support sacroiliac fusion over conservative management for SIJ dysfunction. Clinical studies suggest that SIJ degeneration occurs in the setting of lumbosacral fusions. However, there are few biomechanical studies to provide a good understanding of the effect of lumbosacral fusion on the SIJ. In the present study, researchers performed a biomechanical investigation to discern the effect of pelvic versus SIJ fixation on the SIJ in lumbosacral fusion.

METHODS

Seven fresh-frozen human cadaveric specimens were used. There was one intact specimen and six operative constructs: 1) posterior pedicle screws and rods from T10 to S1 (PS); 2) PS + bilateral iliac screw fixation (BIS); 3) PS + unilateral iliac screw fixation (UIS); 4) PS + UIS + 3 contralateral unilateral SIJ screws (UIS + 3SIJ); 5) PS + 3 unilateral SIJ screws (3SIJ); and 6) PS + 6 bilateral SIJ screws (6SIJ). A custom-built 6 degrees-of-freedom apparatus was used to simulate three bending modes: flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Range of motion (ROM) was recorded at L5-S1 and the SIJ.

RESULTS

All six operative constructs had significantly reduced ROM at L5-S1 in all three bending modes compared to that of the intact specimen (p < 0.05). In the FE mode, the BIS construct had a significant reduction in L5-S1 ROM as compared to the other five constructs (p < 0.05). SIJ ROM was greatest in the FE mode compared to LB and AR. Although the FE mode did not show any statistically significant differences in SIJ ROM across the constructs, there were appreciable differences. The PS construct had the highest SIJ ROM. The BIS construct reduced bilateral SIJ ROM by 44% in comparison to the PS construct. The BIS and 6SIJ constructs showed reductions in SIJ ROM nearly equal to those of the PS construct. UIS and 3SIJ showed an appreciable reduction in unfused SIJ ROM compared to PS.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation demonstrated the effects of various fusion constructs using pelvic and sacroiliac fixation in lumbosacral fusion. This study adds biomechanical evidence of adjacent segment stress in the SIJ in fusion constructs extending to S1. Unilateral pelvic fixation, or SIJ fusion, led to an appreciable but nonsignificant reduction in the ROM of the unfused contralateral SIJ. Bilateral pelvic fixation showed the greatest significant reduction of movement at L5-S1 and was equivalent to bilateral sacroiliac fusion in reducing SIJ motion.

Biomechanical analysis of motion following sacroiliac joint fusion using lateral sacroiliac screws with or without lumbosacral instrumented fusion

BACKGROUND

Sacroiliac joint hypermobility or aberrant mechanics may be a source of pain. The purpose of this study was to assess sacroiliac joint range of motion after simulated adjacent lumbosacral instrumented fusion, with or without sacroiliac joint fusion, with lateral sacroiliac screws.

METHODS

In this in vitro biomechanical study, seven cadaveric specimens were tested on a six-degrees-of-freedom machine under load control. Left posterior sacroiliac joint ligaments were severed to maximize joint range of motion. Influence of lumbosacral instrumentation on sacroiliac joint motion, with or without fixation, was studied.

FINDINGS

During flexion-extension in the setting of posterior sacroiliac joint injury and L5-S1 fixation, sacroiliac joint range of motion increased to 195% of intact. After fixation with lateral sacroiliac screws, average range of motion reduced to 144% of intact motion. Sacroiliac joint screws thus partially stabilized the joint and reduced motion. Use of 6 bilateral sacroiliac joint screws with L5-S1 screw and rod fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation yielded the greatest reduction in range of motion. Without lumbosacral fixation, baseline motion of the sacroiliac joint was reduced, and sacroiliac joint screw alone, using either 2, 3, or 6 screws, was able to restore motion at or below the level of an intact joint.

INTERPRETATION

Sacroiliac joint ligament injury with existing lumbosacral fixation doubled sacroiliac joint range of motion, but thereafter, fixation with lateral sacroiliac screws decreased range of motion of the injured sacroiliac joint. Screw configuration played a minor role, but generally, 6 sacroiliac joint screws had the greatest motion reduction.

Evaluation of iliac screw, S2 alar-iliac screw and laterally placed triangular titanium implants for sacropelvic fixation in combination with posterior lumbar instrumentation: a finite element study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to implement laterally placed triangular titanium implants as a technique of sacropelvic fixation in long posterior lumbar instrumentation and to characterize the effects of iliac screws, S2 alar-iliac screws and of triangular implants on rod and S1 pedicle screw stresses.

METHODS

Four female models of the lumbopelvic spine were created. For each of them, five finite element models replicating the following configurations were generated: intact, posterior fixation with pedicle screws to S1 (PED), with PED and iliac screws (IL), with PED and S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws, and with PED and bilateral triangular titanium implants (SI). Simulations were conducted in compression, flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation. Rod stresses in the L5-S1 segment as well as in the S1 pedicle screws were compared.

RESULTS

One anatomical model was not simulated due to dysmorphia of the sacroiliac joints. PED resulted in the highest implant stresses. Values up to 337 MPa in lateral bending were noted, which were more than double than the other configurations. When compared with IL, S2AI and SI resulted in lower stresses in both screws and rods (on average 33% and 41% for S2AI and 17% and 50% for SI).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant stresses after S2AI and SI fixations were lower than those attributable to IL. Therefore, pedicle screws and rods may have a lower risk of mechanical failure when coupled with sacropelvic fixation via S2AI or triangular titanium implants, although the risk of clinical loosening remains an area of further investigation. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Joint coordinate system for biomechanical analysis of the sacroiliac joint

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) biomechanics have been described in both in vitro and in vivo studies. A standard for joint coordinate systems has been created by the International Society of Biomechanics for most of the joints in the human body. However, a standardized joint coordinate system for sacroiliac joint motion analysis is currently still lacking. This impedes the comparison across studies and hinders communication among scientists and clinicians. As SIJ motion is reported to be quite limited, a proper standardization and reproducibility of this procedure is essential for the interpretation of future biomechanical SIJ studies. This paper proposes a joint coordinate system for the analysis of sacroiliac joint motion, based on the procedure developed by Grood and Suntay, using semi-automated anatomical landmarks on 3D joint surfaces. This coordinate system offers high inter-rater reliability and aspires to a more intuitive representation of biomechanical data, as it is aligned with SIJ articular surfaces. This study aims to encourage further reflection and debate on biomechanical data representation, in order to facilitate interpretation of SIJ biomechanics and improve communication between researchers and clinicians. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res.

In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel, Minimally Invasive, Sacroiliac Joint Fixation Device

Background

Sacroiliac (SI) joint pathology may result in low-back pain, which causes substantial disability. Treatment failure with operative management of SI pain may be related to incomplete fusion of the joint and to fixation failure. The objective of this study was to evaluate the initial biomechanical stability of SI joint fixation with a novel implantable device in an in vitro human cadaveric model.

Methods

The right and left sides of 3 cadaveric L4-pelvis specimens were tested (1) intact, (2) destabilized, and (3) instrumented with an implantable SI joint fixation device using a simulated single-stance load condition. Right-leg and left-leg stance data were grouped together for a sample size of 6, and angular range of motion (ROM) was determined during application of flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation bending moments to a limit of 7.5 Nm.

Results

Following intact testing, destabilization by severing the posterior SI joint capsule and ligaments and the pubic symphysis reliably produced a significantly destabilized joint with the mean angular ROM more than doubling in flexion-extension and lateral bending and more than tripling in axial rotation (P ≤ .003) compared to the intact condition. Instrumentation with the SI screw fixation device significantly reduced mean joint ROM compared to the destabilized condition in all 3 anatomic planes tested (P < .001). When compared to the intact condition, the SI-instrumented condition significantly reduced lateral bending (P = .01) and had a similar ROM in flexion-extension (P = .14) and axial rotation (P = .85).

Conclusions

Instrumentation with the SI screw fixation device significantly reduced mean joint ROM compared to the destabilized condition, with similar ROM in flexion-extension and axial rotation, and it significantly reduced ROM in lateral bending compared to that for the intact joint. The ROM values observed with the instrumented condition were comparable to levels of mobility considered favorable for spinal fusion.

Radiofrequency denervation for treatment of sacroiliac joint pain-comparison of two different ablation techniques

The radiofrequency treatment (RFD) for sacroiliac joint pain (SIP) is well-established, but there is still scarce evidence on its clinical outcome. The classical monopolar RFD is limited by a high recurrence rate. This might be caused by an incomplete denervation of the dorsal rami. The Simplicity III probe was invented to optimise pain fibre recruitment by its multi-electrode design. However, the clinical superiority of this procedure was never proven. The aim of this study was to illustrate the effectiveness of RFD and to compare both denervation techniques. One hundred twenty-one patients were included, and their clinical course was analysed. Fifty-seven patients received conventional treatment with multiple percutaneous monopolar RFDs (monolesion probe group, MoLG) and 64 patients with the Simplicity III probe (multilesion probe group, MuLG). All patients were followed 1, 3, 6 and 12 s after RFD. Clinical outcome scores were analysed (numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Odom's criteria, Short Form 36 score). The MuLG showed a clearly advanced improvement concerning the clinically relevant pain relief (≥ 50%) (1 month/3 months /6 months/12 months = 72%, 55%, 36%, 27% vs. 1 month/3 months/6 months/12 months = 39%, 28%, 16%, 11%) as well as an advanced improvement of pain-associated disability and a higher satisfaction rating compared to the MoLG (NPRS_MuLG__preop = 8,3; NPRS_MuLG__12months = 5.8; NPRS_{MoLG_preop} = 7,7; NPRS_{MoLG_12months} = 5.8; ODI_{MuLG_preop} = 52; ODI_{MuLG_12months} = 42; ODI_{MoLG_preop} = 52; ODI_{MoLG_12months} = 47; ODOMS_{MuLG_good/excellent} = 54%; ODOMS_{MoLG_good/excellent} = 28%). RFD of the SIP with the Simplicity III probe is effective and delivers a distinct pain reduction even after 1 year of treatment. This technique shows clear advantages compared to the conventional monolesion technique and is a useful treatment for patients with recurrent SIP.

Biomechanical evaluation of sacroiliac joint fixation with decortication

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Fusion typically consists of joint preparation, grafting, and rigid fixation. Fusion has been successfully used to treat symptomatic disruptions of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and degenerative sacroiliitis using purpose-specific, threaded implants. The biomechanical performance of these systems is important but has not been studied.

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to compare two techniques for placing primary (12.5 mm) and secondary (8.5 mm) implants across the SIJ.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a human cadaveric biomechanical study of SIJ fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pure-moment testing was performed on 14 human SIJs in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR) with motion measured across the SIJ. Specimens were tested intact, after destabilization (cutting the pubic symphysis), after decortication and implantation of a primary 12.5-mm implant at S1 plus an 8.5-mm secondary implant at either S1 (S1-S1, n=8) or S2 (S1-S2, n=8), after cyclic loading, and after removal of the secondary implant. Ranges of motion (ROMs) were calculated for each test. Bone density was assessed on computed tomography and correlated with age and ROM. This study was funded by Zyga Technology but was run at an independent biomechanics laboratory.

RESULTS

The mean±standard deviation intact ROM was 3.0±1.6° in FE, 1.5±1.0° in LB, and 2.0±1.0° in AR. Destabilization significantly increased the ROM by a mean 60%-150%. Implantation, in turn, significantly decreased ROM by 65%-71%, below the intact ROM. Cyclic loading did not impact ROM. Removing the secondary implant increased ROM by 46%-88% (non-significant). There was no difference between S1-S1 and S1-S2 constructs. Bone density was inversely correlated with age (R=0.69) and ROM (R=0.36-0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Fixation with two threaded rods significantly reduces SIJ motion even in the presence of joint preparation and after initial loading. The location of the secondary 8.5-mm implant does not affect construct performance. Low bone density significantly affects fixation and should be considered when planning fusion constructs. Findings should be interpreted in the context of ongoing clinical studies.

Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length

AIM

To analyze how various implants placement variables affect sacroiliac (SI) joint range of motion.

METHODS

An experimentally validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and pelvis was used to simulate a fusion of the SI joint using various placement configurations of triangular implants (iFuse Implant System^®). Placement configurations were varied by changing implant orientation, superior implant length, and number of implants. The range of motion of the SI joint was calculated using a constant moment of 10 N-m with a follower load of 400 N. The changes in motion were compared between the treatment groups to assess how the different variables affected the overall motion of the SI joint.

RESULTS

Transarticular placement of 3 implants with superior implants that end in the middle of the sacrum resulted in the greatest reduction in range of motion (flexion/extension = 73%, lateral bending = 42%, axial rotation = 72%). The range of motions of the SI joints were reduced with use of transarticular orientation (9%-18%) when compared with an inline orientation. The use of a superior implant that ended mid-sacrum resulted in median reductions of (8%-14%) when compared with a superior implant that ended in the middle of the ala. Reducing the number of implants, resulted in increased SI joint range of motions for the 1 and 2 implant models of 29%-133% and 2%-39%, respectively, when compared with the 3 implant model.

CONCLUSION

Using a validated finite element model we demonstrated that placement of 3 implants across the SI joint using a transarticular orientation with superior implant reaching the sacral midline resulted in the most stable construct. Additional clinical studies may be required to confirm these results.

Biomechanics of unilateral and bilateral sacroiliac joint stabilization: laboratory investigation

OBJECTIVE Bilateral symptoms have been reported in 8%-35% of patients with sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction. Stabilization of a single SI joint may significantly alter the stresses on the contralateral SI joint. If the contralateral SI joint stresses are significantly increased, degeneration may occur; alternatively, if the stresses are significantly reduced, bilateral stabilization may be unnecessary for patients with bilateral symptoms. The biomechanical effects of 1) unilateral stabilization on the contralateral SI joint and 2) bilateral stabilization on both SI joints are currently unknown. The objectives of this study were to characterize bilateral SI joint range of motion (ROM) and evaluate and compare the biomechanical effects of unilateral and bilateral implant placement for SI joint fusion. METHODS A lumbopelvic model (L5-pelvis) was used to test the ROM of both SI joints in 8 cadavers. A single-leg stance setup was used to load the lumbar spine and measure the ROM of each SI joint in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Both joints were tested 1) while intact, 2) after unilateral stabilization, and 3) after bilateral stabilization. Stabilization consisted of lateral transiliac placement of 3 triangular titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) implants. RESULTS Intact testing showed that during single-leg stance the contralateral SI joint had less ROM in flexion-extension (27%), lateral bending (32%), and axial rotation (69%) than the loaded joint. Unilateral stabilization resulted in significant reduction of flexion-extension ROM (46%) on the treated side; no significant ROM changes were observed for the nontreated side. Bilateral stabilization resulted in significant reduction of flexion-extension ROM of the primary (45%) and secondary (75%) SI joints. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that during single-leg loading the ROMs for the stance (loaded) and swing (unloaded) SI joints are significantly different. Unilateral stabilization for SI joint dysfunction significantly reduces the ROM of the treated side, but does not significantly reduce the ROM of the nontreated contralateral SI joint. Bilateral stabilization is necessary to significantly reduce the ROM for both SI joints.

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

BACKGROUND

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is an underdiagnosed condition. Several published cohorts have reported favorable mid-term outcomes after SIJ fusion using titanium implants placed across the SIJ. Herein we report long-term (24-month) results from a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-two subjects at 26 US sites with SI joint dysfunction were enrolled and underwent minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants. Subjects underwent structured assessments preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively, including SIJ pain ratings (0-100 visual analog scale), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 (SF-36), EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction. Adverse events were collected throughout follow-up. All participating patients underwent a high-resolution pelvic CT scan at 1 year.

RESULTS

Mean subject age was 50.9 years and 69.8% were women. SIJ pain was present for an average of 5.1 years prior to surgical treatment. SIJ pain decreased from 79.8 at baseline to 30.4 at 12 months and remained low at 26.0 at 24 months (p<.0001 for change from baseline). ODI decreased from 55.2 at baseline to 31.5 at 12 months and remained low at 30.9 at 24 months (p<.0001 for change from baseline). Quality of life (SF-36 and EQ-5D) improvements seen at 12 months were sustained at 24 months. The proportion of subjects taking opioids for SIJ or low back pain decreased from 76.2% at baseline to 55.0% at 24 months (p <.0001). To date, 8 subjects (4.7%) have undergone one or more revision SIJ surgeries. 7 device-related adverse events occurred. CT scan at one year showed a high rate (97%) of bone adherence to at least 2 implants on both the iliac and sacral sides with modest rates of bone growth across the SIJ.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients with SIJ dysfunction, minimally invasive SI joint fusion using triangular titanium implants showed marked improvements in pain, disability and quality of life at 2 years. Imaging showed that bone apposition to implants was common but radiographic evidence of intraarticular fusion within the joint may take more than 1 year in many patients. This prospective multicenter clinical trial was approved by local or regional IRBs at each center prior to first patient enrollment. Informed consent with IRB-approved study-specific consent forms was obtained from all patients prior to participation.

Sacroiliac Joint Pain and Its Treatment

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) as a source of symptoms has been controversial; however, as knowledge about the joint increased, its role as a pain generator in patients complaining of symptoms that are often attributed to spinal pathology has become better appreciated. The literature reports that the SIJ is the pain origin in as many as 30% of patients presenting with low back pain. Clinically, the SIJ can be challenging to evaluate; however, assessing pain location, patient posture/movement, and provocative manual testing are useful in making the presumptive diagnosis of SIJ disruption. The most definitive evaluation is image-guided injection of anesthetic solutions into the joint which is diagnostic if there is at least 75% symptom relief acutely. Treatment begins with nonoperative intervention including physical therapy and/or chiropractic care. If these fail, the next option is generally radiofrequency denervation (rhizotomy) of the joint. If this does not provide adequate relief, surgical intervention, in the form of minimally invasive SIJ fusion may be considered. The literature increasingly supports favorable results of SIJ fusion in appropriately selected patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current literature on the SIJ, with focus on its surgical treatment.

Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Minimally Affects Adjacent Lumbar Segment Motion: A Finite Element Study

BACKGROUND

Adjacent segment disease is a recognized consequence of fusion in the spinal column. Fusion of the sacroiliac joint is an effective method of pain reduction. Although effective, the consequences of sacroiliac joint fusion and the potential for adjacent segment disease for the adjacent lumbar spinal levels is unknown. The objective of this study was to quantify the change in range of motion of the sacroiliac joint and the adjacent lumbar spinal motion segments due to sacroiliac joint fusion and compare these changes to previous literature to assess the potential for adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

An experimentally validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and pelvis was used to simulate a fusion of the sacroiliac joint using three laterally placed triangular implants (iFuse Implant System, SI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA). The range of motion of the sacroiliac joint and the adjacent lumbar spinal motion segments were calculated using a hybrid loading protocol and compared with the intact range of motion in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation.

RESULTS

The range of motions of the treated sacroiliac joints were reduced in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, by 56.6%, 59.5%, 27.8%, and 53.3%, respectively when compared with the intact condition. The stiffening of the sacroiliac joint resulted in increases at the adjacent lumbar motion segment (L5-S1) for flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, of 3.0%, 3.7%, 1.1%, and 4.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Fusion of the sacroiliac joint resulted in substantial (> 50%) reductions in flexion, extension, and axial rotation of the sacroiliac joint with minimal (< 5%) increases in range of motion in the lumbar spine. Although the predicted increases in lumbar range of motion are minimal after sacroiliac joint fusion, the long-term clinical results remain to be investigated.

A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique

BACKGROUND

A number of studies have been published regarding minimally invasive surgical (MIS) fusion of the sacroiliac (SI) joint using a lateral transarticular approach. Herein we report a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize operative measures and clinical outcomes reported in published studies of MIS SI joint fusion.

METHODS

The systematic review was done according to PRISMA standards. PubMed and EMBASE were searched using the terms sacroiliac joint AND fusion. Original peer-reviewed articles in the English language that reported clinical outcomes on at least 5 cases of MIS SI joint fusion using a lateral transarticular approach were included. Random effects meta-analysis (RMA) was performed on selected variables using the DerSimonian and Laird method, including operative measures, VAS SI joint pain ratings (0-10 scale) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed. Other findings were summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

A total of 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. After accounting for overlapping cohorts, 12 unique cohorts from 4 countries were extracted for a total of 432 subjects. The RMA mean (range) was 59 minutes (27-78) for procedure time, 36.9cc (10-70) for estimated blood loss and 1.7 days (range 0-7) for length of stay (LOS). The RMA mean [95% CI] pain score dropped by 5.2 points at 6 months and 5.3 points at 12 months (baseline score of 8.1 [7.8-8.4], 12-month score of 2.7 [2.1-3.3]), and a 24-month score of 2.0(1.4-2.5). ODI decreased by 31 points at 12 months (baseline score of 56.2 [51.0-61.5], 6-month score of 30.7 [21.8-39.6], and 12-month score of 25.1 [12.3-37.9]). Some estimates showed significant variation across studies and between the types of implants used. Other reported outcomes were supportive of the positive effects of SI joint fusion.

CONCLUSION

Published studies of MIS SI joint fusion using a lateral transarticular approach confirm its minimally invasive characteristics with minimal blood loss and short operating room times, and show consistent, rapid, sustained and clinically important improvements in patient reported SI joint pain, disability and quality of life scores.