Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Khalid Medani , Abdulrhman Alsalama , Rakesh Kumar , Shlok Patel , Megh Patel , Sunil Manjila
{"title":"Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Khalid Medani ,&nbsp;Abdulrhman Alsalama ,&nbsp;Rakesh Kumar ,&nbsp;Shlok Patel ,&nbsp;Megh Patel ,&nbsp;Sunil Manjila","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2025.104212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) is indicated in patients with chronic Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain or instability and is usually performed using minimally invasive techniques through lateral or posterior approach.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>Our study aims to compare the lateral approach to the posterior one in SIJF through meta-analysis of other studies. The outcome of each approach is measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), or both.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Articles were extracted using Pubmed advance search till February 27th, 2023. Articles included were those limited to either lateral, posterior or both approaches. Articles written in a non-English language, case reports and smaller-than-three case series were excluded from the study. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales. Stata-17 software program was used for statistical analysis and creation of forest plots.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Forty-eight articles were available for the quantitative analysis, which represents a total of 2562 subjects. The average duration of postoperative follow-up was 21 months (3–72 months) and 17 months (6–72 months) for the VAS and ODI outcomes, respectively. The average percentage of improvement in the VAS was 57% (22–80%) in the lateral approach versus 58% (29–94%) in the posterior approach (p = 0.986). The average percentage of improvement in the ODI was 42% (11–75%) in the lateral approach versus 31% (11–65%) in the posterior one (p = 0.272). A trend towards performing posterior approaches more frequently was noted in studies published after 2017.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><div>Approach selection for SIJF depends mainly on patient's characteristics and surgeon's experience. Our study demonstrated no difference in VAS outcome between lateral and posterior approach. Lateral approach appeared to be superior in ODI outcome although not statistically significant. The main limitation of the study is the selection-bias as the majority of articles included were observational. Therefore, randomized procedural trials are needed to validate these findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 104212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772529425000311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) is indicated in patients with chronic Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain or instability and is usually performed using minimally invasive techniques through lateral or posterior approach.

Research question

Our study aims to compare the lateral approach to the posterior one in SIJF through meta-analysis of other studies. The outcome of each approach is measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), or both.

Materials and methods

The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Articles were extracted using Pubmed advance search till February 27th, 2023. Articles included were those limited to either lateral, posterior or both approaches. Articles written in a non-English language, case reports and smaller-than-three case series were excluded from the study. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales. Stata-17 software program was used for statistical analysis and creation of forest plots.

Results

Forty-eight articles were available for the quantitative analysis, which represents a total of 2562 subjects. The average duration of postoperative follow-up was 21 months (3–72 months) and 17 months (6–72 months) for the VAS and ODI outcomes, respectively. The average percentage of improvement in the VAS was 57% (22–80%) in the lateral approach versus 58% (29–94%) in the posterior approach (p = 0.986). The average percentage of improvement in the ODI was 42% (11–75%) in the lateral approach versus 31% (11–65%) in the posterior one (p = 0.272). A trend towards performing posterior approaches more frequently was noted in studies published after 2017.

Discussion and conclusion

Approach selection for SIJF depends mainly on patient's characteristics and surgeon's experience. Our study demonstrated no difference in VAS outcome between lateral and posterior approach. Lateral approach appeared to be superior in ODI outcome although not statistically significant. The main limitation of the study is the selection-bias as the majority of articles included were observational. Therefore, randomized procedural trials are needed to validate these findings.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信