Safety and 6-month effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study

被引:45
|
作者
Duhon, Bradley S. [1 ]
Cher, Daniel J. d [2 ]
Wine, Kathryn D. [2 ]
Lockstadt, Harry [3 ]
Kovalsky, Don [4 ]
Soo, Cheng-Lun [5 ]
机构
[1] Neurosurg & Spine Specialists, Parker, CO USA
[2] SI BONE Inc, 3055 Olin Ave,Suite 2200, San Jose, CA 95128 USA
[3] Bluegrass Orthopaed & Hand Care, Lexington, KY USA
[4] Orthopaed Ctr Southern Illinois, Mt Vernon, IA USA
[5] Hlth Res Inst, Oklahoma City, OK USA
关键词
minimally invasive surgery; sacroiliac joint; sacroiliac joint arthrodesis; spine surgery; prospective clinical trial;
D O I
10.2147/MDER.S55197
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
Background: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an often overlooked cause of low back pain. SI joint arthrodesis has been reported to relieve pain and improve quality of life in patients suffering from degeneration or disruption of the SI joint who have failed non-surgical care. We report herein early results of a multicenter prospective single-arm cohort of patients with SI joint degeneration or disruption who underwent minimally invasive fusion using the iFuse Implant System (R). Methods: The safety cohort includes 94 subjects at 23 sites with chronic SI joint pain who met study eligibility criteria and underwent minimally invasive SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System (R) between August 2012 and September 2013. Subjects underwent structured assessments preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, including SI joint and back pain visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D). Patient satisfaction with surgery was assessed at 6 months. The effectiveness cohort includes the 32 subjects who have had 6-month follow-up to date. Results: Mean subject age was 51 years (n=94, safety cohort) and 66% of patients were women. Subjects were highly debilitated at baseline (mean VAS pain score 78, mean ODI score 54). Three implants were used in 80% of patients; two patients underwent staged bilateral implants. Twenty-three adverse events occurred within 1 month of surgery and 29 additional events occurred between 30 days and latest follow-up. Six adverse events were severe but none were device-related. Complete 6-month postoperative follow-up was available in 26 subjects. In the effectiveness cohort, mean (+/- standard deviation) SI joint pain improved from a baseline score of 76 (+/- 16.2) to a 6-month score of 29.3 (+/- 23.3, an improvement of 49 points, P<0.0001), mean ODI improved from 55.3 (+/- 10.7) to 38.9 (+/- 18.5, an improvement of 15.8 points, P<0.0001) and SF-36 PCS improved from 30.7 (+/- 4.3) to 37.0(+/- 10.7, an improvement of 6.7 points, P=0.003). Ninety percent of subjects who were ambulatory at baseline regained full ambulation by month 6; median time to full ambulation was 30 days. Satisfaction with the procedure was high at 85%. Conclusion: Minimally invasive SI joint fusion using the iFuse Implant System (R) is safe. Mid-term follow-up indicates a high rate of improvement in pain and function with high rates of patient satisfaction.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 229
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Frasco, Melissa A.
    Arnold, Renee J. G.
    Polly, David W.
    [J]. CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2016, 8 : 1 - 14
  • [2] Triangular Titanium Implants for Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Prospective Study
    Duhon, Bradley S.
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Wine, Kathryn D.
    Kovalsky, Don A.
    Lockstadt, Harry
    [J]. GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2016, 6 (03) : 257 - 269
  • [3] The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Shamrock, Alan Gregory
    Patel, Anand
    Alam, Milad
    Shamrock, Keith Hayden
    Al Maaieh, Motasem
    [J]. GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 9 (08) : 874 - 880
  • [4] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Phillips, Frank M.
    Garfin, Steven R.
    [J]. ORTHOPEDICS, 2011, 34 (08) : 600 - 601
  • [5] 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.
    [J]. MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2014, 7 (01) : 187 - 193
  • [6] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: The Current Evidence
    Martin, Christopher T.
    Haase, Lucas
    Lender, Paul A.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 14 : S20 - S29
  • [7] 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.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 22 (08): : 1240 - 1253
  • [8] Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (vol 8, pg 1, 2016)
    Cher, D. J.
    Frasco, M. A.
    Arnold, R. J.
    Polly, D. W.
    [J]. CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2016, 8 : 305 - 305
  • [9] ISASS Policy 2016 Update - Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Lorio, Morgan P.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2016, 10
  • [10] Review of Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Lee, David W.
    Patterson, Denis G.
    Sayed, Dawood
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 15 (03): : 514 - 524