Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 3/2020

01-06-2020 | Sacroiliac Joint Pain | Review Article

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

Authors: Megan Dale, James Evans, Kimberley Carter, Susan O’Connell, Helen Morgan, Grace Carolan-Rees

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(4):255–65.CrossRef Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(4):255–65.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Spain K, Holt T. Surgical revision after sacroiliac joint fixation or fusion. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11:5.CrossRef Spain K, Holt T. Surgical revision after sacroiliac joint fixation or fusion. Int J Spine Surg. 2017;11:5.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference 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. 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.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(8):579–84.CrossRef Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(8):579–84.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
iFuse Implant System for Treating Chronic Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
Authors
Megan Dale
James Evans
Kimberley Carter
Susan O’Connell
Helen Morgan
Grace Carolan-Rees
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00539-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 3/2020 Go to the issue