MINIMALLY INVASIVE SACROILIAC JOINT FUSION A Lateral Approach Using Triangular Titanium Implants and Navigation

被引:9
|
作者
Polly, David W., Jr. [1 ]
Holton, Kenneth J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Orthoped Surg, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
来源
JBJS ESSENTIAL SURGICAL TECHNIQUES | 2020年 / 10卷 / 04期
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; CONSERVATIVE MANAGEMENT; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.2106/JBJS.ST.19.00067
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion is indicated for low back pain from the SI joint that is due to degenerative sacroiliitis and/or sacroiliac joint disruption. This technique is safe and effective in relieving pain uncontrolled by nonoperative management(1-4). There is some controversy, but there continues to be increasing evidence of effectiveness. Description: This procedure is performed, with the patient under general anesthesia and in the prone position, using fluoroscopy or 3-dimensional (3D) navigation such as cone-beam computed tomographic (CT) imaging. After navigation setup, a navigated probe is used to approximate the desired location of each implant and trajectory. These positions are marked on the skin, and the skin is incised. A 3 to 5-cm lateral incision is made. The gluteal fascia is bluntly dissected to the outer table of the ilium. A guide pin is passed across the SI joint and into the center of the sacrum lateral to the neural foramina, which is confirmed with imaging. This is then drilled and broached. Triangular titanium rods are placed. Typically, 3 implants are placed, 2 in S1 and 1 in S2. Multiplanar postplacement imaging of the pelvis is obtained. The wound is irrigated and closed in layers. Alternatives: Nonsurgical alternatives have been reported to include pharmacological therapies, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, therapeutic SI joint blocks(5), and physical therapy, such as core stabilization, orthotics (SI belts), and radiofrequency ablation(1,2,6-8). The surgical alternative is an open anterior or posterior approach with SI joint arthrodesis. The anterior approach differs by the resection of the SI joint cartilage, the use of a plate or screws across the joint for stabilization, and the packing of bone graft to facilitate fusion(9). These are more morbid and have a much longer recovery. Rationale: Conservative management for SI joint pain is inadequate for all patients. Having 3 of 5 positive physical examination maneuvers(7), having confirmatory diagnostic block(s)(10), and ruling out the hip or spine as the pain generator provide a success rate of >80%. These patients have early and sustained clinically important and significantly improved outcomes across varying measures compared with conservative treatment(1-4,11,12). Expected Outcomes: Patients can expect to experience decreased pain, reduced disability, increased daily function, and improved quality of life soon after the procedure is performed. These patients typically have an improvement of >= 50% in the Oswestry Disability Index score and a clinically significant decrease in visual analog pain scores(13). The procedure appears durable through at least 5 years(14). Complete pain relief is rare, but clinically important improvement is typical. Important Tips: Proper setup of the navigation system or fluoroscopy is needed to ensure accurate starting points. For 3D navigation, use a reference pin in the contralateral posterior superior iliac spine. Although navigation is used, radiographic images are made periodically to confirm proper placement of guide pins and implants. Images provide the greatest benefit when establishing navigation, after guide-pin placement when an outlet view allows for evaluation of pin depth, and after implant placement to confirm proper placement. Blood loss is generally low, but care should be taken to avoid vascular injury. Although rare, improper placement has led to injury of the superior gluteal artery15 and iliac artery(16). This can be avoided by staying in bone. Proper placement of the implant is imperative in this procedure. There is the potential for nerve injury with improper placement of the implant: an L5 nerve injury if the implant is too ventral or an S1 or S2 nerve injury if the implant is too deep and into the foramen. Revision surgery is commonly due to nerve root impingement and/or malpositioning. Preoperative 3D imaging is indicated when it is necessary to rule out differential diagnoses that mimic SI joint pain. This enables the surgeon to rule out intrapelvic pathology, assess sacral bone density17, and identify dysmorphic sacra or transitional vertebrae.
引用
收藏
页码:411 / 422
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] In Reply to the Letter to the Editor Regarding "Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Cylindrical Threaded Implants Using Intraoperative Stereotactic Navigation"
    Rajpal, Sharad
    Burneikiene, Sigita
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 135
  • [22] Prospective Trial of Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using 3D-Printed Triangular Titanium Implants
    Patel, Vikas
    Kovalsky, Don
    Meyer, S. Craig
    Chowdhary, Abhineet
    Lockstadt, Harry
    Techy, Fernando
    Langel, Casey
    Limoni, Robert
    Yuan, Philip S.
    Kranenbure, Andy
    Cher, Daniel
    Tender, Gabriel
    Hillen, Travis J.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2020, 13 : 173 - 182
  • [23] Clinical outcomes for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with allograft using a posterior approach
    Moghim, Robert
    Bovinet, Chris
    Jin, Max Y.
    Edwards, Katie
    Abd-Elsayed, Alaa
    PAIN PRACTICE, 2024,
  • [24] A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique
    Heiney, Jake
    Capobianco, Robyn
    Cher, Daniel
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2015, 9
  • [25] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: The Current Evidence
    Martin, Christopher T.
    Haase, Lucas
    Lender, Paul A.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 14 : S20 - S29
  • [26] Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review
    Chang, Eva
    Rains, Caroline
    Ali, Rania
    Wines, Roberta C.
    Kahwati, Leila C.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 22 (08): : 1240 - 1253
  • [27] One-year outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with a series of triangular implants: a multicenter, patient-level analysis
    Sachs, Donald
    Capobianco, Robyn
    Cher, Daniel
    Holt, Timothy
    Gundanna, Mukund
    Graven, Timothy
    Shamie, A. Nick
    Cummings, John, Jr.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2014, 7 (07): : 299 - 304
  • [28] The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Shamrock, Alan Gregory
    Patel, Anand
    Alam, Milad
    Shamrock, Keith Hayden
    Al Maaieh, Motasem
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 9 (08) : 874 - 880
  • [29] Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Frasco, Melissa A.
    Arnold, Renee J. G.
    Polly, David W.
    CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2016, 8 : 1 - 14
  • [30] Navigated Simultaneous Lateral Minimally Invasive Tubular and Posterior Mini-Open Access for Removal and Revision of Triangular Sacroiliac Joint Implants: A Technical Note
    Razak, Shahaan S.
    Haider, Ghani
    West, Timothy
    Al Sideiri, Ghusn
    Massengale, Justin
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 185 : 285 - 289