Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 3/2017

Open Access 01-03-2017 | Original Article

Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management

Authors: Bengt Sturesson, Djaya Kools, Robert Pflugmacher, Alessandro Gasbarrini, Domenico Prestamburgo, Julius Dengler

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) using triangular titanium implants vs conservative management (CM) in patients with chronic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain.

Methods

103 adults with chronic SIJ pain at nine sites in four European countries were randomly assigned to and underwent either minimally invasive SIJF using triangular titanium implants (N = 52) or CM (N = 51). CM was performed according to the European guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pelvic girdle pain and consisted of optimization of medical therapy, individualized physical therapy (PT) and adequate information and reassurance as part of a multifactorial treatment. The primary outcome was the difference in change in self-rated low back pain (LBP) at 6 months. Additional endpoints included quality of life using EQ-5D-3L, disability using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SIJ function using active straight leg raise (ASLR) test and adverse events. NCT01741025.

Results

At 6 months, mean LBP improved by 43.3 points in the SIJF group and 5.7 points in the CM group (difference of 38.1 points, p < 0.0001). Mean ODI improved by 26 points in the SIJF group and 6 points in the CM group (p < 0.0001). ASLR, EQ-5D-3L, walking distance and satisfaction were statistically superior in the SIJF group. The frequency of adverse events did not differ between groups. One case of postoperative nerve impingement occurred in the surgical group.

Conclusions

In patients with chronic SIJ pain, minimally invasive SIJF using triangular titanium implants was safe and more effective than CM in relieving pain, reducing disability, improving patient function and quality of life.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Goldthwait JE, Osgood RB (1905) A consideration of the pelvic articulations from an anatomical, pathological and clinical standpoint. Boston Med Surg J 152:593–601CrossRef Goldthwait JE, Osgood RB (1905) A consideration of the pelvic articulations from an anatomical, pathological and clinical standpoint. Boston Med Surg J 152:593–601CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Steindler A (1938) Differential diagnosis of pain low in the back. JAMA 110:106–113CrossRef Steindler A (1938) Differential diagnosis of pain low in the back. JAMA 110:106–113CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mixter W, Barr J (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 211:210–215CrossRef Mixter W, Barr J (1934) Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal. N Engl J Med 211:210–215CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Bernard TN, Kirkaldy-Willis WH (1987) Recognizing specific characteristics of nonspecific low back pain. Clin Orthop 217:266–280 Bernard TN, Kirkaldy-Willis WH (1987) Recognizing specific characteristics of nonspecific low back pain. Clin Orthop 217:266–280
10.
go back to reference Sturesson B (2007) CHAPTER 23—Movement of the sacroiliac joint with special reference to the effect of load A2—Wilson, Andry VleemingVert MooneyRob StoeckartPhilip. In: Mov. Stab. Lumbopelvic Pain Second Ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 343–352 Sturesson B (2007) CHAPTER 23—Movement of the sacroiliac joint with special reference to the effect of load A2—Wilson, Andry VleemingVert MooneyRob StoeckartPhilip. In: Mov. Stab. Lumbopelvic Pain Second Ed. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 343–352
11.
go back to reference Vleeming A, Volkers AC, Snijders CJ, Stoeckart R (1990) Relation between form and function in the sacroiliac joint. Part II: biomechanical aspects. Spine 15:133–136CrossRefPubMed Vleeming A, Volkers AC, Snijders CJ, Stoeckart R (1990) Relation between form and function in the sacroiliac joint. Part II: biomechanical aspects. Spine 15:133–136CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Sturesson B, Selvik G, Udén A (1989) Movements of the sacroiliac joints. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine 14:162–165CrossRefPubMed Sturesson B, Selvik G, Udén A (1989) Movements of the sacroiliac joints. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Spine 14:162–165CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Gaenslen FJ (1927) Sacro-iliac arthrodesis: indications, author’s technic and end-results. J Am Med Assoc 89:2031–2035CrossRef Gaenslen FJ (1927) Sacro-iliac arthrodesis: indications, author’s technic and end-results. J Am Med Assoc 89:2031–2035CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Smith-Petersen MN (1921) Arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint. A new method of approach. J Bone Jt Surg 3:400–405 Smith-Petersen MN (1921) Arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint. A new method of approach. J Bone Jt Surg 3:400–405
15.
go back to reference Hagen R (1974) Pelvic girdle relaxation from an orthopaedic point of view. Acta Orthop Scand 45:550–563CrossRefPubMed Hagen R (1974) Pelvic girdle relaxation from an orthopaedic point of view. Acta Orthop Scand 45:550–563CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Waisbrod H, Krainick JU, Gerbershagen HU (1987) Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis for chronic lower back pain. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Arch Für Orthop Unf-Chir 106:238–240CrossRef Waisbrod H, Krainick JU, Gerbershagen HU (1987) Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis for chronic lower back pain. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Arch Für Orthop Unf-Chir 106:238–240CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Giannikas KA, Khan AM, Karski MT, Maxwell HA (2004) Sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic pain: a simple technique avoiding the use of metalwork. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 13:253–256. doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0620-1 CrossRef Giannikas KA, Khan AM, Karski MT, Maxwell HA (2004) Sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic pain: a simple technique avoiding the use of metalwork. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 13:253–256. doi:10.​1007/​s00586-003-0620-1 CrossRef
19.
20.
go back to reference Schütz U, Grob D (2006) Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome. Acta Orthop Belg 72:296–308PubMed Schütz U, Grob D (2006) Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome. Acta Orthop Belg 72:296–308PubMed
21.
go back to reference Belanger TA, Dall BE (2001) Sacroiliac arthrodesis using a posterior midline fascial splitting approach and pedicle screw instrumentation: a new technique. J Spinal Disord 14:118–124CrossRefPubMed Belanger TA, Dall BE (2001) Sacroiliac arthrodesis using a posterior midline fascial splitting approach and pedicle screw instrumentation: a new technique. J Spinal Disord 14:118–124CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Manfré L (2014) Percutaneous sacroiliac joint fixation in sacroiliac instability. The first case report using a fully CT-guided technique. Interv Neuroradiol J Peritherapeutic Neuroradiol Surg Proced Relat Neurosci 20:621–625 Manfré L (2014) Percutaneous sacroiliac joint fixation in sacroiliac instability. The first case report using a fully CT-guided technique. Interv Neuroradiol J Peritherapeutic Neuroradiol Surg Proced Relat Neurosci 20:621–625
24.
go back to reference Ledonio C, Polly D, Swiontkowski MF, Cummings J (2014) Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Med Devices Evid Res 2014:187–193. doi:10.2147/MDER.S60370 CrossRef Ledonio C, Polly D, Swiontkowski MF, Cummings J (2014) Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Med Devices Evid Res 2014:187–193. doi:10.​2147/​MDER.​S60370 CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Graham Smith A, Capobianco R, Cher D et al (2013) Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res 7:14. doi:10.1186/1750-1164-7-14 CrossRef Graham Smith A, Capobianco R, Cher D et al (2013) Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res 7:14. doi:10.​1186/​1750-1164-7-14 CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Fortin JD, Falco FJ (1997) The Fortin finger test: an indicator of sacroiliac pain. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ 26:477–480PubMed Fortin JD, Falco FJ (1997) The Fortin finger test: an indicator of sacroiliac pain. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ 26:477–480PubMed
28.
go back to reference Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2952 (discussion 2952) CrossRefPubMed Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2952 (discussion 2952) CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ et al (2001) Reliability and validity of the active straight leg raise test in posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine 26:1167–1171CrossRefPubMed Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ et al (2001) Reliability and validity of the active straight leg raise test in posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine 26:1167–1171CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy Amst Neth 16:199–208CrossRef EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy Amst Neth 16:199–208CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Austria, Vienna Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Austria, Vienna
37.
go back to reference Sachs D (2013) Minimally Invasive versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Comparison of Process Measures and Description of Technique. In: Int. Soc. Adv. Spine Surg. Vancouver, p 187 Sachs D (2013) Minimally Invasive versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Comparison of Process Measures and Description of Technique. In: Int. Soc. Adv. Spine Surg. Vancouver, p 187
38.
go back to reference Gaetani P, Miotti D, Risso A et al (2013) Percutaneous arthrodesis of sacro-iliac joint: a pilot study. J Neurosurg Sci 57:297–301PubMed Gaetani P, Miotti D, Risso A et al (2013) Percutaneous arthrodesis of sacro-iliac joint: a pilot study. J Neurosurg Sci 57:297–301PubMed
39.
go back to reference Vanaclocha VV, Verdú-López F, Sánchez-Pardo M et al (2014) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: experience in a prospective series with 24 patients. J Spine. doi:10.4172/2165-7939.1000185 Vanaclocha VV, Verdú-López F, Sánchez-Pardo M et al (2014) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: experience in a prospective series with 24 patients. J Spine. doi:10.​4172/​2165-7939.​1000185
42.
44.
47.
go back to reference Copay AG, Cher DJ (2015) Is the Oswestry Disability Index a valid measure of response to sacroiliac joint treatment? Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1095-3 Copay AG, Cher DJ (2015) Is the Oswestry Disability Index a valid measure of response to sacroiliac joint treatment? Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. doi:10.​1007/​s11136-015-1095-3
48.
go back to reference Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR et al (2011) Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 14:598–604. doi:10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10472 CrossRefPubMed Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR et al (2011) Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 14:598–604. doi:10.​3171/​2010.​12.​SPINE10472 CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Cher DJ, Reckling WC, Capobianco RA (2015) Implant survivorship analysis after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using the iFuse Implant System. Med Devices Evid Res 8:485–492. doi:10.2147/MDER.S94885 CrossRef Cher DJ, Reckling WC, Capobianco RA (2015) Implant survivorship analysis after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using the iFuse Implant System. Med Devices Evid Res 8:485–492. doi:10.​2147/​MDER.​S94885 CrossRef
51.
Metadata
Title
Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management
Authors
Bengt Sturesson
Djaya Kools
Robert Pflugmacher
Alessandro Gasbarrini
Domenico Prestamburgo
Julius Dengler
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4599-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

European Spine Journal 3/2017 Go to the issue