Systematic Review on Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1111/papr.70059
Benjamin Gill, Hamzah Adel Ramawad, Patrick Buchanan, Amirmohammad Toloui, Timothy Deer, Aileen Padilla, Tony George, Denis Patterson, Chris Bovinet, Rick Paicius, Dawood Sayed, David W Lee
{"title":"Systematic Review on Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.","authors":"Benjamin Gill, Hamzah Adel Ramawad, Patrick Buchanan, Amirmohammad Toloui, Timothy Deer, Aileen Padilla, Tony George, Denis Patterson, Chris Bovinet, Rick Paicius, Dawood Sayed, David W Lee","doi":"10.1111/papr.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sacroiliac joint dysfunction contributes to a significant proportion of lower back and leg pain and associated functional deficiencies. Following failure of conservative methods, lateral fusion approaches have previously provided the mainstay for surgical stabilization of the joint. In recent years there are multiple devices available for sacroiliac fusion via posterior or posterolateral oblique approaches, thereby reducing neurovascular complications of the lateral approach.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for pain and functional outcomes in patients treated with posterior or posterolateral oblique sacroiliac joint fusion devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was improvement in pain following posterior or posterolateral oblique sacroiliac joint fusion in publications between 2020 and 2024, with the authors' previous review conducted up to 2020. Three authors assessed studies identified from multiple databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 740 initial publications, 12 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. These peer-reviewed articles included two prospective and 10 retrospective observational studies, with two studies providing direct comparisons to lateral fusion approaches. Overall average improvement of VAS/NRS pain scores at final follow-up for intra-articular fusion via posterior approach and posterolateral oblique fusion ranged 35%-75% and 28%-89%, respectively. Cohort outcomes were nearly all statistically significant. Complications were minimal and typically resolved with revision fusion. The heterogeneity of studies prohibited proper meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is increasing evidence for the effectiveness and safety of posterior and posterolateral oblique sacroiliac joint fusion. Future randomized, controlled trials are needed to guide specific device and approach selection, and elucidation of patient long-term outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 6","pages":"e70059"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sacroiliac joint dysfunction contributes to a significant proportion of lower back and leg pain and associated functional deficiencies. Following failure of conservative methods, lateral fusion approaches have previously provided the mainstay for surgical stabilization of the joint. In recent years there are multiple devices available for sacroiliac fusion via posterior or posterolateral oblique approaches, thereby reducing neurovascular complications of the lateral approach.

Objectives: To provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for pain and functional outcomes in patients treated with posterior or posterolateral oblique sacroiliac joint fusion devices.

Methods: The primary outcome was improvement in pain following posterior or posterolateral oblique sacroiliac joint fusion in publications between 2020 and 2024, with the authors' previous review conducted up to 2020. Three authors assessed studies identified from multiple databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar).

Results: Out of 740 initial publications, 12 studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. These peer-reviewed articles included two prospective and 10 retrospective observational studies, with two studies providing direct comparisons to lateral fusion approaches. Overall average improvement of VAS/NRS pain scores at final follow-up for intra-articular fusion via posterior approach and posterolateral oblique fusion ranged 35%-75% and 28%-89%, respectively. Cohort outcomes were nearly all statistically significant. Complications were minimal and typically resolved with revision fusion. The heterogeneity of studies prohibited proper meta-analysis.

Conclusion: There is increasing evidence for the effectiveness and safety of posterior and posterolateral oblique sacroiliac joint fusion. Future randomized, controlled trials are needed to guide specific device and approach selection, and elucidation of patient long-term outcomes.

微创骶髂后关节融合术的系统评价。
背景:骶髂关节功能障碍是下背部和腿部疼痛及相关功能缺陷的重要原因。在保守方法失败后,外侧融合入路以前是手术稳定关节的主要方法。近年来有多种经后斜入路或后外侧斜入路进行骶髂融合术的装置,从而减少了外侧入路的神经血管并发症。目的:对骶髂关节后斜或后外侧斜融合装置治疗患者疼痛和功能结果的证据进行全面回顾。方法:主要结果是在2020年至2024年期间发表的后斜或后外侧骶髂关节融合术后疼痛的改善,作者之前的综述进行到2020年。三位作者评估了来自多个数据库(PubMed、SCOPUS、Embase、MEDLINE、Cochrane和谷歌Scholar)的研究。结果:在740篇初始出版物中,12篇研究符合纳入标准。这些同行评议的文章包括两项前瞻性和10项回顾性观察性研究,其中两项研究对侧路融合入路进行了直接比较。经后路关节内融合术和后外侧斜向融合术的VAS/NRS疼痛评分在最终随访时的总体平均改善程度分别为35%-75%和28%-89%。队列结果几乎都具有统计学意义。并发症很少,通常通过翻修融合解决。研究的异质性妨碍了适当的荟萃分析。结论:越来越多的证据表明骶髂后外侧斜关节融合术的有效性和安全性。未来需要随机对照试验来指导具体的设备和方法选择,并阐明患者的长期预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信