Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

iFuse Implant System for Treating Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Abstract

Treatment and management of sacroiliac joint pain is often non-surgical, involving packages of care that can include analgesics, physiotherapy, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency ablation. Surgical intervention is considered when patients no longer respond to conservative management. The iFuse Implant System is placed across the sacroiliac joint using minimally invasive surgery, stabilising the joint and correcting any misalignment or weakness that can cause chronic pain. The iFuse system was evaluated in 2018 by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as part of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP). Clinical evidence for iFuse suggests improved pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and quality of life compared to non-surgical management. The company (SI-Bone®) submitted two cost models indicating that iFuse was cost saving compared with open surgery and non-surgical management. Clinicians advised that non-surgical management was the most appropriate comparator and Cedar (a health technology research centre) made changes to the model to test the impact of higher acquisition and procedure costs. Cedar found iFuse to be cost incurring by approximately £560 per patient at 7 years. During the consultation period, the company reduced the cost of some iFuse consumables, and Cedar extended the time horizon to test the assumption that iFuse would become cost saving over time. These changes indicated that iFuse becomes cost saving at 8 years (approximately £129 per patient), after which the cost saving continues to increase. NICE published guidance in October 2018 recommending that the case for adoption of the iFuse system in the UK National Health Service (NHS) was supported by the evidence.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Campbell B, Campbell M. NICE medical technologies guidance: a novel and rigorous methodology to address a new health technology assessment challenge. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):295–7.

  2. 2.

    Cohen SP, Chen Y, Neufeld NJ. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Expert Rev Neurother. 2013;13(1):99–116. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.12.148.

  3. 3.

    Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(4):255–65.

  4. 4.

    Thawrani DP, Agabegi SS, Asghar F. Diagnosing sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(3):85–93. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00132.

  5. 5.

    Cher DJ, Reckling WC. Quality of life in preoperative patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction is at least as depressed as in other lumbar spinal conditions. Med Dev (Auckl). 2015;8:395–403. https://doi.org/10.2147/mder.s92070.

  6. 6.

    Vleeming A, Albert HB, Ostgaard HC, Sturesson B, Stuge B. European guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic girdle pain. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(6):794–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0602-4.

  7. 7.

    Rashbaum RF, Ohnmeiss DD, Lindley EM, Kitchel SH, Patel VV. Sacroiliac joint pain and its treatment. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):42–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000359.

  8. 8.

    Schmidt GL, Bhandutia AK, Altman DT. Management of sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(17):610–6. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00063.

  9. 9.

    National Insititue for Health and Care Excellence. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery for chronic sacroiliac pain [IPG578]. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg578. Accessed 23 Oct 2019.

  10. 10.

    Evans J, Carolan-Rees G, Morgan H, Dale M, Knight L, Ryczek E. iFUSE implant system for treating chronic sacroiliac joint pain (external assessment report). 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg39/documents/assessment-report. Accessed 19 Nov 2019.

  11. 11.

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. iFUSE for treating chronic sacroiliac joint pain [MTG39]. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg39. Accessed 29 Mar 2019.

  12. 12.

    Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, Frank CJ, Glaser JA, Limoni RP, et al.; INSITE Study Group. Two-year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:28.

  13. 13.

    Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Whang PG, Frank CJ, Harvey CF, et al. Randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: 12-month outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2015;77:674–90.

  14. 14.

    Whang P, Cher D, Polly D, Frank C, Lockstadt H, Glaser J, et al. sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs. non-surgical management: six-month outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:6.

  15. 15.

    Dengler JD, Dengler JD, Kools D, Pflugmacher R, Gasbarrini A, Prestamburgo D, et al. 1-Year results of a randomized controlled trial of conservative management vs. minimally invasive surgical treatment for sacroiliac joint pain. Pain Physician. 2017;20(6):537–50.

  16. 16.

    Dengler J, Sturesson B, Kools D, Prestamburgo D, Cher D, van EE, et al., the iMIA study group. Referred leg pain originating from the sacroiliac joint: 6-month outcomes from the prospective randomized controlled iMIA trial. Acta Neurochir(Wien). 2016;158(11):2219–24.

  17. 17.

    Sturesson B, Sturesson B, Kools D, Pflugmacher R, Gasbarrini A, Prestamburgo D, et al. Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):708–19.

  18. 18.

    Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T.; SIFI Study Group. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: 2-year follow-up from a prospective multicenter trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2016;10:13.

  19. 19.

    Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Kovalsky DA, Lockstadt H. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study. Global Spine J. 2016;6(3):257–69.

  20. 20.

    Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Soo CL. Safety and 6-month effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study. Med Dev (Auckl). 2013;6:219–29.

  21. 21.

    Dengler J, Dengler J, Duhon B, Whang P, Frank C, Glaser J, et al.; INSITE, iMIA, SIFI study groups. Predictors of outcome in conservative and minimally invasive surgical management of pain originating from the sacroiliac joint: a pooled analysis. Spine. 2017;42(21):1664–73.

  22. 22.

    Vanaclocha V, Vanaclocha V, Herrera JM, Saiz-Sapena N, Rivera-Paz M, Verdu-Lopez F. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion, radiofrequency denervation, and conservative management for sacroiliac joint pain: 6-year comparative case series. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1):48–55.

  23. 23.

    Spain K, Holt T. Surgical revision after sacroiliac joint fixation or fusion. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11:5.

  24. 24.

    Bornemann R. Two-year clinical results of patients with sacroiliac joint syndrome treated by arthrodesis using a triangular implant system. Technol Health Care. 2017;25(2):319–25.

  25. 25.

    Cher DJ, Reckling WC, Capobianco RA. Implant survivorship analysis after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using the iFuse Implant System. Med Dev (Auckl). 2015;8:485–92.

  26. 26.

    Miller LE, Reckling WC, Block JE. Analysis of postmarket complaints database for the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System®: a minimally invasive treatment for degenerative sacroiliitis and sacroiliac joint disruption. Med Dev (Auckl). 2013;6:77–84.

  27. 27.

    Rudolf L, Capobianco R. Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants. Open Orthop J. 2014;8:375–83.

  28. 28.

    Sachs D, Kovalsky D, Redmond A, Limoni R, Meyer SC, Harvey C, et al. Durable intermediate-to long-term outcomes after minimally invasive transiliac sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants. Med Dev (Auckl). 2016;9:213–22.

  29. 29.

    Schroeder JE, Cunningham ME, Ross T, Boachie-Adjei O. Early results of sacro-iiliac joint fixation following long fusion to the sacrum in adult spine deformity. HSS J. 2014;10(1):30–5.

  30. 30.

    Capobianco R, Cher D. Safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion in women with persistent post-partum posterior pelvic girdle pain: 12-month outcomes from a prospective, multi-center trial. Springerplus. 2015;4:570.

  31. 31.

    Zaidi HA, Montoure AJ, Dickman CA. Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;23(1):59–66.

  32. 32.

    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(4):871–7.

  33. 33.

    Nystrom B, Nystrom B, Gregebo B, Taube A, Almgren S-O, Schillberg B, et al. Clinical outcome following anterior arthrodesis in patients with presumed sacroiliac joint pain. Scand J Pain. 2017;17:22–9.

  34. 34.

    Ledonio CG, Polly DW Jr, Swiontkowski MF. Minimally invasive versus open sacroiliac joint fusion: are they similarly safe and effective? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(6):1831–8.

  35. 35.

    Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, Rudolf L, Sachs D, Gundanna M, et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2013;7(1):14.

  36. 36.

    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(5):627–31.

  37. 37.

    Al-Khayer A, Hegarty J, Hahn D, Grevitt MP. Percutaneous sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: a novel technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(5):359–63.

  38. 38.

    Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(8):579–84.

  39. 39.

    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(5):520–8.

  40. 40.

    Heiney J, Capobianco R, Cher D. A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique. Int J Spine Surg. 2015;9:40.

  41. 41.

    National Insititue for Health and Care Excellence. MTG39 iFuse for treating chronic sacroiliac joint pain: supporting documentation—consultation comments & responses. London. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg39/documents/supporting-documentation-2. Accessed 29 Mar 2019.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Laura Knight (Cedar, Cardiff & Vale University Health Board) and Edyta Ryczek (Cedar, Cardiff & Vale University Health Board) assisted in preparation of the assessment report. We would like to thank Mr Mark Thomas (Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust), Mr Hilali Noordeen (Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust), Mr Sashin Ahuja (Cardiff & Vale University Health Board) and Mr Bronek Boszczyk (University of Nottingham) for providing expert clinical advice and Mrs Kerry Bentley for providing expert patient advice. This summary of the Medical Technology Guidance was produced following the publication of the final guidance report. The article has not been externally peer reviewed by Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

Author information

MD, JE, SOC, HM, KC and GCR contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. GCR reviewed the full assessment report and this article, and can act as a guarantor for the overall content.

Correspondence to Megan Dale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

At the time of completing the assessment report, JE and HM were Cardiff University employees and had no conflict of interest. KC is a NICE employee and had no role in the production of the assessment report but contributed to the preparation of this manuscript.Cedar was funded by the NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme for their work. MD, SOC and GCR are NHS employees, and the NHS has a financial interest in the guidance on which this project is based.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dale, M., Evans, J., Carter, K. et al. iFuse Implant System for Treating Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00539-7

Download citation