Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Are They Similarly Safe and Effective?

  • Symposium: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

The sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of chronic low back pain in 15% to 30% of patients. When nonsurgical approaches fail, sacroiliac joint fusion may be recommended. Advances in intraoperative image guidance have assisted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques using ingrowth-coated fusion rods; however, how these techniques perform relative to open anterior fusion of the sacroiliac joint using plates and screws is not known.

Questions/purposes

We compared estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between patients undergoing MIS and open sacroiliac joint fusion.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 63 patients (open: 36; MIS: 27) who underwent sacroiliac joint fusion with minimum 1-year followup at our institution from 2006 to 2011. Of those, 10 in the open group had incomplete records. All patients had sacroiliac joint dysfunction confirmed by image-guided intraarticular anesthetic sacroiliac joint injection and had failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were matched via propensity score, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, history of spine fusion, and preoperative ODI scores, leaving 22 in each group. Nine patients were not matched. We reviewed patient medical records to obtain EBL, length of surgery, LOS, and pre- and postoperative ODI scores. Mean followup was 13 months (range, 11–33 months) in the open group and 15 months (range, 12–26 months) in the MIS group.

Results

Patients in the open group had a higher mean EBL (681 mL versus 41 mL, p < 0.001). Mean surgical time and LOS were shorter in the MIS group than in the open group (68 minutes versus 128 minutes and 3.3 days versus 2 days, p < 0.001 for both). With the numbers available, mean postoperative ODI scores were not different between groups (47% versus 54%, p = 0.272).

Conclusions

EBL, surgery time, and LOS favored the MIS sacroiliac fusion group. With the numbers available, ODI scores were similar between groups, though the study size was relatively small and it is possible that the study was underpowered on this end point. Because the implants used for these procedures make assessment of fusion challenging with available imaging techniques, we do not know how many patients’ sacroiliac joints successfully fused, so longer followup and critical evaluation of outcomes scores over time are called for.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1A–B
Fig. 2A–D

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Khayer A, Hegarty J, Hahn D, Grevitt MP. Percutaneous sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: a novel technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:359–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernard TN Jr, Cassidy JD. The Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernard TN Jr, Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Recognizing specific characteristics of nonspecific low back pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;217:266–280.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchowski JM, Kebaish KM, Sinkov V, Cohen DB, Sieber AN, Kostuik JP. Functional and radiographic outcome of sacroiliac arthrodesis for the disorders of the sacroiliac joint. Spine J. 2005;5:520–528; discussion 529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan KF. Musculoskeletal pain clinic in Singapore—sacroiliac joint somatic dysfunction as cause of buttock pain. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1998;27:112–115.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gemmell HA, Jacobson BH. Incidence of sacroiliac joint dysfunction and low back pain in fit college students. J Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 1990;13:63–67. 6

    Google Scholar 

  8. Katz V, Schofferman J, Reynolds J. The sacroiliac joint: a potential cause of pain after lumbar fusion to the sacrum. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:96–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Khurana A, Guha AR, Mohanty K, Ahuja S. Percutaneous fusion of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws: clinical and radiological outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:627–631.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kibsgard TJ, Roise O, Sudmann E, Stuge B. Pelvic joint fusions in patients with chronic pelvic girdle pain: a 23-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:871–877.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kirkaldy-Willis WH. Five common back disorders: how to diagnose and treat them. Geriatrics. 1978;33:32–33, 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Hill RJ. A more precise diagnosis for low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1979;4:102–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kurmann A, Vorburger SA, Candinas D, Beldi G. Operation time and body mass index are significant risk factors for surgical site infection in laparoscopic sigmoid resection: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:3531–3534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lorio MP, Polly DW Jr, Ninkovic I, Ledonio CG, Hallas K, Andersson G. Utilization of minimally invasive surgical approach for sacroiliac joint fusion in surgeon population of ISASS and SMISS membership. Open Orthop J. 2014;8:1–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maigne JY, Aivaliklis A, Pfefer F. Results of sacroiliac joint double block and value of sacroiliac pain provocation tests in 54 patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:1889–1892.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pull ter Gunne AF, Cohen DB. Incidence, prevalence, and analysis of risk factors for surgical site infection following adult spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1422–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rudolf L. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis-MIS technique with titanium implants: report of the first 50 patients and outcomes. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:495–502.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rudolf L. MIS fusion of the SI joint: does prior lumbar spinal fusion affect patient outcomes? Open Orthop J. 2013;7:163–168.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Bogduk N. The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:31–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sembrano JN, Polly DW Jr. How often is low back pain not coming from the back? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:E27–E32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Skramm I, Saltyte Benth J, Bukholm G. Decreasing time trend in SSI incidence for orthopaedic procedures: surveillance matters! J Hosp Infect. 2012;82:243–247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Slinkard N, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF. Documentation of outcomes for sacroiliac joint fusion: does prior spinal fusion influence the outcome? Eur Spine J. 2013;22:2318–2324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Slipman CW, Lipetz JS, Plastaras CT, Jackson HB, Vresilovic EJ, Lenrow DA, Braverman DL. Fluoroscopically guided therapeutic sacroiliac joint injections for sacroiliac joint syndrome. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80:425–432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Slipman CW, Sterenfeld EB, Chou LH, Herzog R, Vresilovic E. The value of radionuclide imaging in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint syndrome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:2251–2254.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Slipman CW, Sterenfeld EB, Chou LH, Herzog R, Vresilovic E. The predictive value of provocative sacroiliac joint stress maneuvers in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint syndrome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:288–292.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Spiker WR, Lawrence BD, Raich AL, Skelly AC, Brodke DS. Surgical versus injection treatment for injection-confirmed chronic sacroiliac joint pain. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012;3:41–53.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:579–584.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2450 Riverside Avenue, South R200, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA

    Charles G. T. Ledonio MD, David W. Polly Jr MD & Marc F. Swiontkowski MD

Authors
  1. Charles G. T. Ledonio MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David W. Polly Jr MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc F. Swiontkowski MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles G. T. Ledonio MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Ledonio, C.G.T., Polly, D.W. & Swiontkowski, M.F. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Are They Similarly Safe and Effective?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472, 1831–1838 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3499-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3499-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation