A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of the Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device

Safety and Preliminary Effectiveness of Lateral Transiliac Sacroiliac Joint Fusion by Interventional Pain Physicians: A Retrospective Analysis

Introduction

Minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion has become the mainstay treatment for chronic refractory sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Multiple procedures are now available including transfixing procedures with implants placed in the lateral or posterolateral transiliac trajectories, and intra-articular procedures with devices and/or allograft placed via a dorsal approach. To date, the published literature on the lateral approach has been primarily by surgeons. This retrospective chart review aims to evaluate the safety and preliminary effectiveness when the procedure is performed by physicians trained in interventional pain management.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent lateral SI joint fusion using a lateral transiliac approach between December 2022 and September 2023 by a single physician. Data on demographics, perioperative details, complications, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. The study was reviewed by WCG IRB and received an exemption authorization.

Results

Medical charts were reviewed for the first 49 consecutive cases performed. Mean (SD, range) age was 64 (11, 34-83), BMI was 32.5 (8.4), 59% were female, 35% were smokers, and 82% were on opioids at baseline. Mean (SD) operative time was 40 (11) minutes and all procedures were performed at an ambulatory surgery center under monitored anesthesia care. No device- or procedure-related complications occurred. Mean follow up was 175 days; Mean (SD) baseline reported pain was 9 (1.5) on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. At follow up, 88% of the patients reported ≥50% pain relief. Six patients who reported 0% relief suffer from multiple pain generators and are on long term opioids.

Conclusion

Results of this single center experience support the safety of lateral SI joint fusion using a threaded implant when performed by interventional pain management physicians. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are warranted to validate these findings.

Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Outcomes: Results from SECURE: A Single Arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Allograft Implant

Introduction

Research suggests that sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is responsible for 15% to 30% of reported low back pain cases. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in SIJ fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) due to safety. Initially, devices designed for MIS were intended for lateral approaches. A minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion implant for use with a posterior approach has been developed and is regulated for clinical use under the regulatory framework required for human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).

Methods

A multi-center, prospective, single-arm study was launched after initial studies provided preliminary data to support safety, efficacy, and durability of this minimally invasive sacroiliac posterior fusion LinQ allograft implant (NCT04423120). Preliminary results were reported previously. Final results for the full participant cohort are presented here.

Results

One-hundred and fifty-nine (159) participants were enrolled across 16 investigational sites in the US between January 2020 and March 2022. One-hundred and twenty-two (122) participants were implanted. At the 1-month follow-up, 82 participants satisfied all criteria for the composite responder endpoint, representing 73.2% of the study cohort. These results stayed consistent across the remaining study timepoints with 66.0%, 74.4%, and 73.5% of participants classified as responders at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up visits, respectively. VAS scores were significantly reduced (p < 0.0001) and ODI scores were significantly improved (p < 0.0001). All domains of the PROMIS-29 were also significantly improved (all p's <0.0001). Only one procedure-related serious AE was reported in the study.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the posterior approach LinQ Implant System is a safe and effective treatment for sacroiliac joint dysfunction at 12 months, with results that are favorable compared to outcomes reported for an FDA-cleared lateral approach.

Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy

BACKGROUND

Sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion is increasingly used to treat chronic SI joint pain. Multiple surgical approaches are now available.

METHODS

Data abstraction and random effects meta-analysis of safety and efficacy outcomes from published patient cohorts. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety measures were stratified by surgical technique: transiliac, including lateral transiliac (LTI) and posterolateral transiliac (PLTI), and posterior interpositional (PI) procedures.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven cohorts of 2851 patients were identified, including 43 cohorts (2126 patients) for LTI, 6 cohorts (228 patients) for PLTI, and 8 cohorts (497 patients) for PI procedures. Randomized trials were only available for LTI. PROs were available for pain (numeric rating scale) in 57 cohorts (2851 patients) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) in 37 cohorts (1978 patients).All studies with PROs showed improvement from baseline after surgery. Meta-analytic improvements in pain scores were highest for LTI (4.8 points [0-10 scale]), slightly lower for PLTI (4.2 points), and lowest for PI procedures (3.8 points, P = 0.1533). Mean improvements in ODI scores were highest for LTI (25.9 points), lowest for PLTI procedures (6.8 points), and intermediate for PI (16.3 points, P = 0.0095).For safety outcomes, acute symptomatic implant malposition was 0.43% for LTI, 0% for PLTI, and 0.2% for PI procedures. Wound infection was reported in 0.15% of LTI, 0% of PLTI, and 0% of PI procedures. Bleeding requiring surgical intervention was reported in 0.04% of LTI procedures and not reported for PLTI or PI. Breakage and migration were not reported for any device. Radiographic imaging evaluation reporting implant placement accuracy and fusion was only available for LTI.

DISCUSSION

Literature support for SI joint fusion is growing. The LTI procedure contains the largest body of available evidence and shows the largest improvements in pain and ODI. Only LTI procedures have independent radiographic evidence of fusion and implant placement. The adverse event rate for all procedures was low.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1

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.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Revision of Failed Sacroiliac Joint Posterior Interpositional Structural Allograft Stabilization with Lateral Porous Titanium Implants: A Multicenter Case Series

Background

Distraction arthrodesis (DA) and stabilization of the sacroiliac (SI) joint by placing standalone structural allograft (SA) into the joint from a posterior trajectory has recently been introduced as a surgical procedure for chronic SI joint pain refractory to non-operative care.

Methods

Retrospective case series of patients with recurrent and/or persistent pain after placement of one or more interpositional/intraarticular standalone SAs between the ilium and sacrum using a posterior procedure to treat SI joint pain/dysfunction. Patients subsequently underwent surgical revision with porous titanium fusion implants using a lateral transfixing procedure. The demographic, clinical, and radiographic features of these cases are described.

Results

Data were available for 37 patients. The average (SD) age was 57 (13) years, 62% were female, and the average BMI was 31 (5.4). On average, two SA implants were placed per joint; 46% of cases were bilateral. At follow-up, two common themes were identified: lucencies around the implants and suboptimal implant position. None of the cases showed radiographic fusion of the SI joint prior to revision. One patient had an inflammatory reaction to the SA. All patients presented for revision due to either continued (49%) or recurrence (51%) of pain. In one revision case, the SA was forced ventrally, resulting in a sacral fracture, which was treated conservatively without sequelae.

Conclusions

The popularity of standalone SA for SI joint stabilization/fusion with a posterior procedure is increasing. This case series demonstrates that clinical failures from this procedure may require surgical revision. The proposed fusion strategy (DA) for these products is unproven in the SI joint, and, therefore, properly conducted prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up are important to establish the safety and efficacy of this approach. In the meantime, the placement of lateral titanium implants appears to be an effective revision strategy.

Six Month Interim Outcomes from SECURE: A Single arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Novel Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device

INTRODUCTION

Sacroiliac joint disease is a prominent diagnosis across the world. A novel fixation technique employing a posterior approach, single point, bone allograft tranfixation has proven to be helpful anecdotally. The purpose of this is study is to investigate prospectively the safety and efficacy of this approach.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, single arm study was performed after patient identification and treatment with the novel posterior fusion, single-point transfixation system and followed for 24 months. Target enrollment is 100 patients. Interim results on the first 69 consecutive patients at 6 months is presented. Primary endpoint at 6-month analysis was Pain Intensity reduction by visual analogue scale and functional improvement by Oswestry Disability Index. Adverse events were assessed for safety analysis.

RESULTS

: 69 patients were identified for this analysis. At 6 months, a mean improvement of 34.9 was identified by a reduction in VAS and functional improvement was demonstrated by a mean reduction in ODI of 17.7. There were three adverse events, all unrelated to the device.

CONCLUSION

The posterior single point transfixation is safe and efficacious for the treatment of sacroiliac joint dysfunction with statistical improvements in pain and function.

Salvage of Failed Lateral Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with a Novel Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device: Diagnostic Approach, Surgical Technique, and Multicenter Case Series

Background

Studies have found that up to one-third of patients with LBP have sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction as a contributing cause. Historically, the management of SIJ dysfunction has been plagued by ineffectiveness or significant morbidity. In 2008, minimally invasive lateral SIJ fusion was developed. While this procedure is a safe and effective treatment, there is still a significant proportion of patients who will not experience therapeutic success. There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the management of these patients. Recently, a novel posterior sacroiliac joint fusion device has been developed which minimizes complications compared to lateral approaches and may serve to salvage therapeutic failures in this patient population.

Objective

Determine the efficacy and feasibility of a posterior SIJ fusion device as a salvage technique in patients who have not experienced therapeutic success following lateral SIJ fusion.

Design

Multi-center retrospective observational study.

Methods

Patients who had previously undergone lateral SIJ fusion and had persistent LBP were evaluated and diagnosed to have persistent primary SIJ pathology. All patients underwent posterior SIJ fusion utilizing a machined allograft transfixing sacroiliac fusion device. Demographic data and patient reported pain scores were collected.

Results

A total of 7 patients who had undergone lateral SIJ fusion were included in the study and underwent posterior SIJ fusion. The mean patient reported pain improvement following posterior fusion was 80% with an average follow-up time of 10 months. Median morphine milliequivalents were 20 pre-procedure and 0 post-procedure.

Conclusion

We were able to show significant reductions in pain scores and opioid consumption, which suggests that minimally invasive posterior SIJ utilizing a novel implant and technique may be a viable treatment option to salvage pain relief in this patient population. Further, the favorable safety profile of this posterior technique uniquely positions it to be an appropriate first-line surgical therapy.

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.