The Assessment of Fusion Following Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Surgery

Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Fusion Rates and Clinical Improvement Using Minimally Invasive Approach and Intraoperative Navigation and Robotic Guidance

STUDY DESIGN

This study adopted a retrospective study design.

PURPOSE

This study was designed to describe the fusion rate and technique and patient subjective improvement after sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion using a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

The SI joint can mimic radicular or discogenic pain localized to the lower back, gluteal region, or sacral region, posing a challenge in the diagnosis and treatment. This study determines the radiological fusion rate and patient reported subjective clinical outcomes of SI joint fusion using an MIS approach, comparing the use of the Rialto SI joint fusion system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) with the help of the Stealth Navigation System with the use of ExcelsiusGPS Robotic Navigation Platform (Globus Medical Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) using SI-LOK screws (Globus Medical Inc.).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 43 consecutive patients who underwent SI joint fusion between August 2017 and February 2020 were enrolled; 60 SI joints were fused. The patients' fusion was documented on computed tomography or X-rays, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were used to determine patient subjective clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 60 joints were fused, including 26 joints fused using robotic guidance and 34 joints fused using the Stealth Navigation System. Student t-test was used to compare the mean preoperative VAS score (7.52±1.3) with the mean postoperative VAS score at the 12-month follow-up (1.43±1.22) (p<0.05). The SI joint fusion rate using this technique was 61% at 6 months, 96.4% at 12 months, and 100% at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of navigation guidance or robotic assistance enables accurate percutaneous screw placement across the SI joint. The use of bone morphogenetic protein in the screw bore hastens fusion across the joint, improving patient-perceived pain.

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.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes with a Principles-Based SIJ Fusion System

Background:

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) degeneration is a common source of low back pain (LBP). Minimally invasive (MI) SIJ fusion procedures have demonstrated meaningful clinical improvement. A recently developed MI SIJ fusion system incorporates decortication, placement of bone graft and fixation with threaded implants (DC/BG/TF).

Patients and Methods:

Nineteen patients who had MI SIJ fusion with DC/BG/TF were enrolled at three centers. Fusion was assessed in CT images obtained 12 and 24 months postoperatively by an independent radiographic core laboratory. LBP was assessed using a 0-10 numerical pain scale (NPS) preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively.

Results:

At 12 months, 15/19 patients (79%) had bridging bone across the SIJ, and at 24 months 17/18 patients (94%) available for follow-up had SIJ fusion. Of the patients with bridging bone 88% had fusion within the decorticated area, with solid fusion in 83%. A significant reduction in NPS scores was demonstrated, representing a 73% reduction in average low back pain.

Conclusion:

The patients in this series demonstrated significant improvement in LBP. Fusion rates at 24 months demonstrate promise for this system, which utilizes the established orthopedic principles of DC/BG/TF to achieve arthrodesis. Further study is warranted to demonstrate comparative fusion rates for different implant systems.