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
  • [31] Minimally invasive arthrodesis for chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction using the SImmetry SI Joint Fusion system
    Miller, Larry E.
    Block, Jon E.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2014, 7 : 125 - 130
  • [32] Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
    Ledonio, Charles G. T.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Swiontkowski, Marc F.
    Cummings, John T., Jr.
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2014, 7 (01) : 187 - 193
  • [33] ISASS Policy 2016 Update - Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Lorio, Morgan P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2016, 10
  • [34] Review of Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Lee, David W.
    Patterson, Denis G.
    Sayed, Dawood
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 15 (03): : 514 - 524
  • [35] Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Scoping Review
    Mehkri, Yusuf
    Tishad, Abtahi
    Nichols, Spencer
    Scott, Kyle W.
    Arias, Jonathan
    Lucke-Wold, Brandon
    Rahmathulla, Gazanfar
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 168 : 120 - 132
  • [36] Utility of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring during Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint
    Woods, Michael
    Birkholz, Denise
    MacBarb, Regina
    Capobianco, Robyn
    Woods, Adam
    ADVANCES IN ORTHOPEDICS, 2014, 2014
  • [37] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion—a Review
    Caio M. Matias
    Lohit Velagapudi
    Thiago S. Montenegro
    Joshua E. Heller
    Current Pain and Headache Reports, 2022, 26 : 173 - 182
  • [38] Ethnic Differences in Western and Asian Sacroiliac Joint Anatomy for Surgical Planning of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Wu, Christopher
    Liu, Yu-Cheng
    Koga, Hiroaki
    Lee, Ching-Yu
    Wang, Po-Yao
    Cher, Daniel
    Reckling, W. Carlton
    Huang, Tsung-Jen
    Wu, Meng-Huang
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (05)
  • [39] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Stabilization
    Novak, V
    Wanek, T.
    Hrabalek, L.
    Stejskal, P.
    ACTA CHIRURGIAE ORTHOPAEDICAE ET TRAUMATOLOGIAE CECHOSLOVACA, 2021, 88 (01) : 35 - 38
  • [40] Three-Year Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis Using Triangular Implants in Japan: A Pilot Study of Five Cases
    Kurosawa, Daisuke
    Murakami, Eiichi
    Koga, Hiroaki
    Ozawa, Hiroshi
    SPINE SURGERY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2022, 6 (01): : 71 - 78