Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes.

Arnold Graham Smith, Robyn Capobianco, Daniel Cher, Leonard Rudolf, Donald Sachs, Mukund Gundanna, Jeffrey Kleiner, Milan G Mody, A Nick Shamie
{"title":"Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes.","authors":"Arnold Graham Smith,&nbsp;Robyn Capobianco,&nbsp;Daniel Cher,&nbsp;Leonard Rudolf,&nbsp;Donald Sachs,&nbsp;Mukund Gundanna,&nbsp;Jeffrey Kleiner,&nbsp;Milan G Mody,&nbsp;A Nick Shamie","doi":"10.1186/1750-1164-7-14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the introduction of minimally invasive options. To date there has been no direct comparison between open and MIS SI joint fusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multi-center, retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who underwent SI joint fusion using either an open surgical (OS) technique using a combination of screws and cages or a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique with a series of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated triangular implants. Operative measures including surgical operating time, length of hospitalization and estimated blood loss (EBL) were collected along with demographics and medical history, surgical complications, and 12- and 24-month pain scores. Improvements in pain were compared after matching for age and gender and controlling for a history of lumbar spine fusion using repeated measures analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were available for 263 patients treated by 7 surgeons; 149 patients treated with OS and 114 treated with MIS SI joint fusion. Compared to OS patients, MIS patients were on average 10 years older (mean age 57 vs. 46) and 69% of all patients were female. MIS operative measures of EBL, operating time and length of hospitalization were significantly lower than open surgery (p < 0.001). Pain relief, measured as change from baseline to 12 months in VAS pain rating, was 3.5 points lower in the MIS vs. OS group (-6.2 vs. -2.7 points, p < 0.001). When matched for age, gender and a history of prior lumbar spinal fusion, postoperative pain scores were on average 3.0 points (95% CI 2.1 - 4.0) lower in MIS vs. OS (rANOVA p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multi-center comparative study, patients who underwent either OS or MIS SI joint fusion showed postoperative improvements in pain score. Compared to OS patients, patients who underwent MIS SI joint fusion had significantly greater pain relief and more favorable perioperative surgical measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":87428,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgical innovation and research","volume":" ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14","citationCount":"151","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgical innovation and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 151

Abstract

Background: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the introduction of minimally invasive options. To date there has been no direct comparison between open and MIS SI joint fusion.

Methods: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who underwent SI joint fusion using either an open surgical (OS) technique using a combination of screws and cages or a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique with a series of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated triangular implants. Operative measures including surgical operating time, length of hospitalization and estimated blood loss (EBL) were collected along with demographics and medical history, surgical complications, and 12- and 24-month pain scores. Improvements in pain were compared after matching for age and gender and controlling for a history of lumbar spine fusion using repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results: Data were available for 263 patients treated by 7 surgeons; 149 patients treated with OS and 114 treated with MIS SI joint fusion. Compared to OS patients, MIS patients were on average 10 years older (mean age 57 vs. 46) and 69% of all patients were female. MIS operative measures of EBL, operating time and length of hospitalization were significantly lower than open surgery (p < 0.001). Pain relief, measured as change from baseline to 12 months in VAS pain rating, was 3.5 points lower in the MIS vs. OS group (-6.2 vs. -2.7 points, p < 0.001). When matched for age, gender and a history of prior lumbar spinal fusion, postoperative pain scores were on average 3.0 points (95% CI 2.1 - 4.0) lower in MIS vs. OS (rANOVA p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this multi-center comparative study, patients who underwent either OS or MIS SI joint fusion showed postoperative improvements in pain score. Compared to OS patients, patients who underwent MIS SI joint fusion had significantly greater pain relief and more favorable perioperative surgical measures.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

开放与微创骶髂关节融合:围手术期措施和临床结果的多中心比较
背景:骶髂(SI)关节痛是一种诊断不足的腰痛来源,部分原因是由于x线片上缺乏可见的病理和类似其他背部相关疾病的症状。自20世纪20年代以来一直进行开放SI关节融合。随着微创手术的出现,这种技术已经失宠了。到目前为止,还没有直接比较开放式和MIS SI关节融合。方法:我们进行了一项多中心、回顾性比较队列研究,采用开放手术(OS)技术(螺钉和保持器组合)或微创手术(MIS)技术(一系列钛等离子体喷雾(TPS)涂层三角形种植体)进行SI关节融合。收集手术措施,包括手术时间、住院时间和估计失血量(EBL),以及人口统计学和病史、手术并发症和12个月和24个月疼痛评分。在匹配年龄和性别并控制腰椎融合史后,使用重复测量方差分析比较疼痛的改善。结果:7位外科医生共治疗263例患者;149例接受OS治疗,114例接受MIS - SI关节融合术。与OS患者相比,MIS患者平均年龄大10岁(平均年龄57岁vs. 46岁),69%的患者为女性。MIS手术的EBL指标、手术时间和住院时间明显低于开放手术(p)。结论:在这项多中心比较研究中,接受OS或MIS SI关节融合的患者术后疼痛评分均有改善。与OS患者相比,接受MIS SI关节融合的患者疼痛缓解明显更大,围手术期手术措施更有利。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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