Surgical Treatment of Patients with Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome: Comparative Study of Two Implants

Abstract

Introduction

The treatment of patients with ISJ dysfunction is difficult due to the multifactorial causes of pain and various problems in clarification. Treatment includes physical therapy, corticosteroids, prolotherapy, radiofrequency denervation and sacroiliac joint fusion. A new option for the surgical treatment of ISG dysfunction is the Torpedo implant system. For a safe fusion, only 2 implants are needed, which are available in lengths of 30–50 mm. The new implant system has been tested in pilot studies for efficacy and biocompatibility with good results. For further documentation for the Torpedo implant system, a comparative study against the iFuse system was carried out.

Material and Methods

Two different implants were used: Group 1: Deltacor Torpedo, Group 2: iFuse implants (Si-Bone). The data generated during admission and subsequent check-ups (VAS, ODI, opioid use) were entered into an evaluation file set up for this purpose. Follow-up appointments were set at 1 month, 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

The data of 65 patients were evaluated comparatively. In all comparisons, only very small effect sizes were found with regard to the differences in the decrease in pain intensities, so that equivalent effectiveness of the two methods could initially be postulated from a clinical point of view. Most patients in both groups reported taking opioids to treat pain before surgery. According to the decrease in pain intensity, opioid treatment could be discontinued in some patients after the operation. After 12 months, the number of patients treated with opioids decreases to 23% in group 1 and to 17% in group 2. The success of the fusions with the two methods can also be proven by image documentation, from which the position of the implants can also be clearly recognised. In no case was there any loosening.

Discussion

Overall, the evaluation of this study allows the conclusion that both implant systems can be successfully used for the treatment of patients with ISJ syndrome. The present results should be confirmed in further comparative studies with the proposed evaluation methods.

Keywords

sacroiliac joint - Sacroiliac Joint Syndrome - comparative study

Publication History

Received: 05 October 2022

Accepted after revision: 05 October 2023

Article published online:
22 November 2023

• Literatur

• 1 Himstead AS, Brown NJ, Shahrestani S. et al. Trends in Diagnosis and Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pathology Over the Past 10 Years: Review of Scientific Evidence for New Devices for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion. Cureus 2021; 13: e15415
• 2 Sembrano JN, Polly DW. How often is low back pain coming from the back?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34: 27-32
• 3 Laslett M. Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of the painful sacroiliac joint. J Man Manip Ther 2008; 16: 142-152
• 4 Manchikanti L, Singh V, Datta S. et al. Comprehensive review of epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain. Pain Physician 2009; 12: E35-E70
• 5 Simopoulos TT, Manchikanti L, Singh V. et al. A systematic evaluation of prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint interventions. Pain Physician 2012; 15: 305-344
• 6 Newman DP, McLean BC, Scozzafava AM. Evaluation and Management of Sacroiliac Dysfunction Utilizing an Evidence-Based Algorithmic Approach. Cureus 2020; 12: e9907
• 7 Le Huec JC, Tsoupras A, Leglise A. et al. The sacro-iliac joint: a potentially painful enigma. Update on the diagnosis and treatment of pain from micro-trauma. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105 (Suppl. 01) S31-S42
• 8 Vanaclocha-Vanaclocha V, Sáiz-Sapena N, Vanaclocha L. Sacroiliac joint pain: is the medical world aware enough of its existence? Why not considering sacroiliac joint fusion in the recalcitrant cases?. J Spine Surg 2019; 5: 384-386
• 9 Dengler J, Kools D, Pflugmacher R. et al. Randomized trial of sacroiliac joint arthrodesis compared with conservative management for chronic low back pain attributed to the sacroiliac joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101: 400-411
• 10 Martin CT, Haase L, Lender PA. et al. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: the current evidence. Int J Spine Surg 2020; 14: 20-29
• 11 Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD. et al. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study. Global Spine J 2016; 6: 257-269
• 12 Cross WW, Delbridge A, Hales D. et al. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: 2-year radiographic and clinical outcomes with a principles-based SIJ fusion system. Open Orthop J 2018; 12: 7-16
• 13 Whang PG, Darr E, Meyer SC. Long-Term Prospective Clinical And Radiographic Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Lateral Transiliac Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants. Med Devices (Auckl) 2019; 12: 411-422
• 14 Darr E, Meyer SC, Whang PG. et al. Long-term prospective outcomes after minimally invasive trans-iliac sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants. Med Devices (Auckl) 2018; 11: 113-121
• 15 Tran ZV, Ivashenko A, Brooks L. Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Methodology – Minimally Invasive Compared to Screw-Type Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Pain Physician 2019; 22: 29-40
• 16 Kasapovic A, Schwetje D, Thaer A. et al. Minimally-invasive arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) with a novel fusion system. Technol Health Care
• 17 Ackermann H. Grundlagen der medizinischen Biometrie. 7. Hochheim, Darmstadt: epsilon; 2016
• 18 Laratta JL, Lin JD, Shillingford JN. et al. Obstructed spinopelvic fixation in the setting of a triangular titanium sacroiliac fusion implant: a case description. J Spine Surg 2017; 3: 732-735
• 19 Leodonio C, Polly jr. DW, Cummings J. Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Med Devices (Auckl) 2014; 7: 187-193
• 20 MacBarb RF, Lindsey DP, Woods SA. et al. Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 2: An In vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS-Coated Triangular Implants. Int J Spine Surg 2017; 11: 16
• 21 Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD. et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs. Non-Surgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: 12-Month Outcomes. Neurosurgery 2015; 77: 674-690
• 22 Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D. et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innovation and Research 2013; 7: 14
• 23 Bornemann R, Pflugmacher R, Koch EMW. Moderne Diagnostik und minimalinvasive Operationsmethoden bei Patienten mit schmerzhaftem Iliosakralgelenksyndrom. Z Orthop Unfall 2017; 155: 281-287
• 24 Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 2005; 14: 798-804
• 25 Hogarth RM. Deciding analytically or trusting your Intuition? The Advantages and Disadvantages of analytic and intuitive Thought. In: Betsch T, Haberstroh S. The Routines of Decision Making. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005: 67-82
• 26 Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25: 2940-2952
• 27 Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC. et al. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 55-65