Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 6/2016

01-06-2016 | Review Article

Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Kiran Kumar Lingutla, Raymond Pollock, Sashin Ahuja

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background context

Although pain is generally regarded as originating in the lumbar spine, it has been estimated that in 15–30 % of patients, LBP originates from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

Purpose

To determine whether sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) for LBP is effective in reducing pain when the SIJ is known to be the pain generator.

Study design/setting

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed of observational studies describing outcome of SIJF in patients with LBP. Outcome measures were VAS pain, ODI, SF-36 PCS/MCS and Majeed score. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Medline and Google scholar. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute case series quality assessment tool. Meta-analysis was used to combine the studies for each outcome and forest plots were prepared. Outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD).

Results

Six studies were included in the meta-analysis with a mean follow-up of 17.6 months. All outcomes showed statistical and clinical improvement (VAS pain MD: 54.8; 95 % CI 48.6, 61.0; n = 380; p < 0.001, ODI MD: 14.5; 95 % CI 8.4, 20.6; n = 102; p < 0.001, SF-36 PCS MD: -19.5; 95 % CI -24.7, -14.2; n = 140; p < 0.001, SF-36 MCS MD: −8.5; 95 % CI −12.9, −4.1; n = 198; p < 0.001 and Majeed score MD: −35.4; 95 % CI −48.5, −22.2; n = 140; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

SIJF appears to be a satisfactory procedure for alleviating pelvic girdle pain.
Literature
1.
Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Bogduck M (1995) The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine 20:31–37CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Schutz A, Grob D (2006) Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome. Acta Orthop Belg 72:296–308PubMed
4.
Kibsgard TJ, Roise O, Stug B (2014) Pelvic joint fusions in patients with severe pelvic girdle pain—a prospective single-subject research design study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:85CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Zaidi HA, Montoure AJ, Dickman CA (2015) Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine 23:59–66CrossRefPubMed
7.
Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2009) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
8.
Majeed SA (1989) Grading the outcome of pelvic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 71:304–306
9.
10.
11.
RevMan [computer program]. Version 5.2.11, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, 2013
12.
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range and the size of the sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5(1):13–20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Headrick TC (2010) Statistical simulation: power method polynomials and other transformations. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, p 137
14.
Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD et al (2013) Safety and 6-month effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study. Med Dev Evid Res 6:219–229
15.
Mason LW, Chopra I (2013) The percutaneous stabilisation of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws: a prospective outcome study. Euro Spine J 22:2325–2331CrossRef
16.
Rudolf L, Capobianco R (2014) Five year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants. Open Orthop J 8:375–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Sachs D, Capobianco R, Cher D et al (2014) One year outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with a series of triangular implants: a multicenter patient level analysis. Med Dev Evid Res 7:299–304
18.
Khurana A, Guha AR, Mohanty K et al (2009) Percutaneous fusion of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws. J Bone Joint Surg 91:627–631CrossRef
19.
20.
Stuber KJ (2007) Specificity, sensitivity and predictive values of clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint; a systematic review of the literature. J Can Chiropr Assoc 51(1):30–41PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Berthelot JM, Labat JJ, Le Goff B et al (2006) Provocative sacroiliac joint maneuvers and sacroiliac joint block are unreliable for diagnosing sacroiliac joint pain. Joint Bone Spine 73(1):7–23CrossRef
22.
Tofuku K, Koga H, Komiya S (2015) The diagnostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography for severe joint dysfunction. Euro Spine J 24:859–863
23.
Sembrano JN, Polly DW Jr (2009) How often is low back pain not coming form the back? Spine 34:E27–E32CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Wise CL, Dall BE (2008) Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:579–584CrossRefPubMed
26.
Slinkard N, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF (2013) Documenation of outcomes for sacroiliac joint fusion: does prior spinal fusion influence outcome? Eur Spine J 22:2318–2324CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
28.
29.
Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20PubMed
30.
Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR (2008) 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 8:968–974CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Kiran Kumar Lingutla
Raymond Pollock
Sashin Ahuja
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4490-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

European Spine Journal 6/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

Compressive myelopathy in severe angular kyphosis: a series of ten patients

Original Article

Psychometric properties including reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Majeed pelvic score in patients with chronic sacroiliac joint pain

Original Article

Transdiscal screw versus pedicle screw fixation for high-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis in patients younger than 60 years: a case–control study

Original Article

A comparison of feasibility and safety of percutaneous fluoroscopic guided thoracic pedicle screws between Europeans and Asians: is there any difference?

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor concerning “Surgery and survival outcomes of 30 patients with neurological deficit due to clear cell renal cell carcinoma spinal metastases” by Shuai Han et al. (Eur Spine J, 2015; DOI 10.1007/s00586-015-3912-3)

Original Article

Neural innervation patterns in the sacral vertebral body