Salvage of Failed Lateral Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with a Novel Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device: Diagnostic Approach, Surgical Technique, and Multicenter Case Series
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: Studies have found that up to one-third of patients with LBP have sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction as a contributing cause. Historically, the management of SIJ dysfunction has been plagued by ineffectiveness or significant morbidity. In 2008, minimally invasive lateral SIJ fusion was developed. While this procedure is a safe and effective treatment, there is still a significant proportion of patients who will not experience therapeutic success. There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the management of these patients. Recently, a novel posterior sacroiliac joint fusion device has been developed which minimizes complications compared to lateral approaches and may serve to salvage therapeutic failures in this patient population.
Objective: Determine the efficacy and feasibility of a posterior SIJ fusion device as a salvage technique in patients who have not experienced therapeutic success following lateral SIJ fusion.
Design: Multi-center retrospective observational study.
Methods: Patients who had previously undergone lateral SIJ fusion and had persistent LBP were evaluated and diagnosed to have persistent primary SIJ pathology. All patients underwent posterior SIJ fusion utilizing a machined allograft transfixing sacroiliac fusion device. Demographic data and patient reported pain scores were collected.
Results: A total of 7 patients who had undergone lateral SIJ fusion were included in the study and underwent posterior SIJ fusion. The mean patient reported pain improvement following posterior fusion was 80% with an average follow-up time of 10 months. Median morphine milliequivalents were 20 pre-procedure and 0 post-procedure.
Conclusion: We were able to show significant reductions in pain scores and opioid consumption, which suggests that minimally invasive posterior SIJ utilizing a novel implant and technique may be a viable treatment option to salvage pain relief in this patient population. Further, the favorable safety profile of this posterior technique uniquely positions it to be an appropriate first-line surgical therapy.
Sayed D, Deer T, Tieppo Francio V, Lam C, Sochacki K, Hussain N J Pain Res. 2024; 17:1601-1638.
PMID: 38716038 PMC: 11075694. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S464393.
Chin K, Francis R, Costigan W, Spayde E, Ike C, Jeong Y J Spine Surg. 2023; 9(3):348-356.
PMID: 37841784 PMC: 10570639. DOI: 10.21037/jss-23-43.
Whang P, Patel V, Duhon B, Sturesson B, Cher D, Carlton Reckling W Int J Spine Surg. 2023; 17(6):794-808.
PMID: 37798076 PMC: 10753354. DOI: 10.14444/8543.
Sayed D, Amirdelfan K, Hunter C, Raji O J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):406.
PMID: 37270508 PMC: 10239050. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03886-3.
Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes After Revision Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.
Thompson J, Marigi E, Cross 3rd W Int J Spine Surg. 2023; 17(2):250-257.
PMID: 36754573 PMC: 10165668. DOI: 10.14444/8421.