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
下载
收藏
页码:219 / 229
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] How Much Work Effort is Involved in Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion?
    Garber, Tara
    Ledonio, Charles G. T.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2015, 9
  • [22] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Are They Similarly Safe and Effective?
    Ledonio, Charles G. T.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    Swiontkowski, Marc F.
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2014, 472 (06) : 1831 - 1838
  • [23] Duration and Magnitude of Opioid Use After Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Benson, Dillon
    Litvak, Audrey
    Zhang, Douglas
    Johnson, Christopher
    El Dafrawy, Mostafa
    Lee, Michael
    SPINE, 2024, 49 (12) : 857 - 864
  • [24] Minimally invasive arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ)
    Kasapovic, Adnan
    Ali, Thaer
    Jaenisch, Max
    Rommelspacher, Yorck
    Gathen, Martin
    Pflugmacher, Robert
    Schwetje, Desiree
    OPERATIVE ORTHOPADIE UND TRAUMATOLOGIE, 2022, 34 (02): : 98 - 108
  • [25] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion-a Review
    Matias, Caio M.
    Velagapudi, Lohit
    Montenegro, Thiago S.
    Heller, Joshua E.
    CURRENT PAIN AND HEADACHE REPORTS, 2022, 26 (03) : 173 - 182
  • [26] Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs Nonsurgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: 12-Month Outcomes
    Polly, David W.
    Cher, Daniel J.
    Wine, Kathryn D.
    Whang, Peter G.
    Frank, Clay J.
    Harvey, Charles F.
    Lockstadt, Harry
    Glaser, John A.
    Limoni, Robert P.
    Sembrano, Jonathan N.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 77 (05) : 674 - 690
  • [27] Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: 2-Dimensional Operative Video
    Holste, Katherine G. G.
    Saleh, Sara
    Bruzek, Amy K. K.
    Strong, Michael J. J.
    Park, Paul
    OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 23 (01) : E54 - E54
  • [28] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion for the Treatment of Brucella Pyogenic Sacroiliitis: A Case Report
    Anton, Gustavo
    Tong, Doris
    Little, Tania
    Soo, Teck M.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 11 (11)
  • [29] Return to Duty in Military Service Members Following Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
    Cognetti, Daniel J.
    Anderson, Kevin D.
    Handcox, Jordan E.
    Jorgensen, Anton Y.
    MILITARY MEDICINE, 2024, 189 (3-4) : e668 - e673
  • [30] Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: One-Year Outcomes in 40 Patients
    Sachs, Donald
    Capobianco, Robyn
    ADVANCES IN ORTHOPEDICS, 2013, 2013