Updated December 4, 2015 (This supplements the ISASS Policy Statement – Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion (2014))
Morgan P. Lorio, MD, FACS
Neuro-Spine Solutions, Bristol, TN
A PDF version of the policy statement is available here.
The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a cause of chronic lower back pain. SI joints are paired diarthrodial articulations of the sacrum and ilium. The SI joint serves as the biomechanical mediator between the spine and pelvis. The subchondral bone, capsule, and surrounding ligaments of the SIJ are innervated by spinal nerves.(1)
Because SIJ pain can be confused with lumbar and hip pain, proper diagnosis of SIJ pain is key to appropriate patient management. Patients with SIJ pain typically report pain in the buttocks, with possible radiation into the groin or upper legs. Specific physical examination tests that stress the SIJ (e.g., distraction test, compression test, thigh thrust, FABER (Patrick’s) test, Gaenslen’s maneuver, sacral sulcus tenderness) are typically performed in the physician’s office; in combination, these tests are thought to be predictive of SI joint pain.(2) Apart from ankylosing spondylitis, in which MRI can show edema consistent with inflammation, imaging of the SIJ typically does not provide valuable diagnostic information. Rather, imaging is used to ensure that the patient does not have alternative diagnoses that could mimic SIJ pain (e.g., hip osteoarthritis, occasionally L5/S1 spine degeneration). The diagnosis of SIJ pain is confirmed by performing a fluoroscopy guided percutaneous SI joint block with local anesthetic (e.g., lidocaine). An acute reduction in pain of 75%(3,4) (using visual analog scale) or more compared to immediately prior to the block is diagnostic as a positive test and indicates that the injected joint is the pain generator based on published studies. A study of patients undergoing blinded injection of saline or local anesthetic showed markedly high responses to the latter, validating the test.(5) Because other pathologic processes can coexist with SIJ pain, in order to assure that SI joint pain is the primary (or only) diagnosis, the physician should ensure that non-SIJ causes of pelvic or lower back pain are ruled out on the basis of history, physical exam and/or imaging; examples of alternative diagnoses include pelvic fracture, tumor, infection, skeletal deformity, hip arthritis, and degeneration of the L5/S1 disc or other base-of-spine pathologies.
Occasionally, bilateral SIJ pain can occur. Diagnosis of bilateral SI joint pain must be made on the basis of typical history, physical examination showing bilateral SIJ pain with maneuvers (listed above) that stress the SIJ, and bilateral acute pain relief upon bilateral, fluoroscopy-guided SI joint block.
Multiple non-surgical treatments for SIJ pain are available, including pain medications (e.g., non-steroid anti-inflammatory agents, opioids), physical therapy, steroid injections into the SIJ, and radiofrequency ablation of the SIJ. Most patients respond adequately to conservative treatment. However, a small number of patients do not have satisfactory pain relief and may be functionally disabled (e.g., cannot sit or stand for more than five minutes, cannot perform normal activities of daily living (ADLs), cannot walk up or down stairs, may require a wheelchair, may require chronic opioid treatment). Patients with a diagnosis of SIJ pain who experience pain for a minimum of six months and who do not respond to an adequate course of non-surgical treatment may be considered for SIJ fusion.
Open fusion of the SIJ can provide pain relief but recovery times are long and the complication rate is high.(6-10) Patients can experience significant intraoperative bleeding and require prolonged postoperative rehabilitation. Therefore, open fusion of the SIJ is best performed on patients who are not candidates for minimally invasive SIJ fusion.(14)
Minimally invasive fusion of the SIJ has been performed with several types of implants, including triangular, porous, titanium coated implants (11-19,24-28), hollow modular screws (20-22), titanium cages (23,29), and allograft dowels(6) (Table 1). These devices are placed either inside or across the SIJ using a minimally invasive surgical approach. Minimally invasive SIJ fusion provides pain relief by acutely stabilizing the painful SI joint with subsequent fusion. In addition to outcomes published of multiple retrospective case series (11-15,17-22,24,25,27-31), published results from a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) of minimally invasive SIJ fusion vs. non-surgical management (NSM)(17,33) and a multi-center prospective single-arm trial(16,32) have substantiated high rates of pain relief, improvement in functional measures (SF-36, ODI and EQ-5D) and a low rate of both revisions (<5%) and serious adverse events. Furthermore, these improvements are significantly greater in patients treated with MIS SIJ fusion compared to NSM; at 6 months, VAS scores improved by 52 points in the fusion group compared to 12 points for NSM. ODI improved 27 points in the surgery group vs. 4.6 points in NSM patients at 6 months, EQ-5D scores improved by 0.29 in the fusion group (p<.001) vs. 0.06 points in the NSM group. Mean scores for all SF-36 domains improved significantly in the surgery group while no improvement was seen for any domain in the NSM group. Mean SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) improved by 12.5 points in the surgery group vs. 1.3 points in the NSM group at 6 months. All values were highly statistically significant (p<.001). After 12 months, subjects assigned to SIJ fusion still had significant reductions in pain and disability, as well as improved quality of life. Thirty-five subjects from the nonsurgical group opted to crossover (allowed per protocol) and undergo the implant procedure, with subsequent similarly good results at 6 months post-surgery. In a multicenter retrospective review of 263 patients undergoing either open or minimally invasive SIJ fusion, the latter was associated with statistically significant and clinically marked decreases in operating room time (mean 163 minutes for open vs. 70 minutes for minimally invasive), decreased blood loss (mean 288 cc vs. 33 cc), and decreased length of stay (5.1 vs. 1.3 days) as well as improved relief of pain at 1 (-2.7 points on 0-10 scale vs. -6.2 points) and 2-year (-2.0 vs. -5.6 points) follow-up (all differences are statistically significant.).(14) Two published studies report that favorable outcomes achieved at one year are sustained long term (up to 5-years).(15,19)
The complication rate for minimally invasive SI joint fusion is low. Importantly, the rate of removal or revision is less than 2%. (16,17,26,32,33) Revisions can be required in the immediate postoperative period or after many months. Early revisions may include the need to reposition an implant that is impinging on a sacral nerve or removal of an implant due to infection.
In cases of bilateral SI joint pain, bilateral SIJ fusion may occasionally be indicated and is usually performed serially to minimize the impact on rehabilitation (i.e., patients who undergo simultaneous bilateral fusion procedures may be wheelchair or bedbound for several weeks, possible slowing overall recovery).
Patients who have all of the following criteria may be eligible for minimally invasive SIJ fusion:
Minimally invasive SIJ fusion is NOT indicated for patients with the following:
In rare instances, bilateral SIJ pain can occur. Diagnosis of bilateral SI joint pain must be made on the basis of a history of bilateral pain, bilateral elicitation of pain on physical examination maneuvers that stress each SIJ, and acute bilateral decrease in pain upon fluoroscopically-guided intra-articular SI joint block with local anesthetic.
Bilateral SIJ fusion is probably best performed serially to ensure that fusion of both joints is necessary (i.e., pain/disability continues after the first fusion in spite of conservative treatment and a nerve block of the unfused joint results in more than 75% reduction in pain). If bilateral fusion is performed at the same operative session, the surgeon must document both medical necessity and why serial fusion is not indicated in the patient.
It is expected that a person would not undergo more than one SIJ fusion per side per lifetime except in the rare case that a revision is needed.
The American Medical Association recommends minimally invasive SI joint fusion be coded using CPT code 27279. Revision and/or removal of the SI joint implant would typically be coded using 22899 (unlisted procedure, spine) or 27299 (unlisted procedure, pelvis or hip joint) depending on the type of approach and procedure performed, whether within the global period of the fusion, or not.
Table 1: ICD-10-CM Diagnosis |
|
ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code |
Description |
M46.1 | Sacroiliitis, not elsewhere classified |
M53.2×8 | Thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, unspecified |
M53.3 | Disorders of sacrum |
S33.2xxA | Dislocation of sacroiliac and sacrococcygeal joint |
S33.6xxA | Sprain of sacroiliac joint |
099.89 | Other specified diseases and conditions complicating pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium |
094 | Sequelae of complication of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium |
For patients undergoing minimally invasive SI joint fusion, the following must be documented in the medical record and available upon request:
Table 2: MIS SIJ Fusion Surgery Published Literature |
||||||||||
Inclusion criteria: indexed in PubMed, English language, fusion of the SI joint described as minimally invasive or percutaneous, clinical outcomes available. Single patient case reports, imaging studies, and technique reports with no clinical outcomes are excluded | ||||||||||
Cohort studies including prospective, retrospective, single and multi-center | ||||||||||
Author, Year | Study design | N | Implant | Technique | Demographics Mean (±SD) or (range), unless otherwise specified |
Results Mean (±SD) or (range) unless otherwise specified |
Complications (n) | |||
Polly 2015 (33) | Prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial
(surgical arm reported herein) |
102 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 50.2 (26-72) years Sex: 75F/27M Prior lumbar fusion: 39%Follow-up: 12mo |
VAS: 82.3 (11.9) pre-op, 28.3 (29.3) at 12mo ODI: 57.2 (12.8) pre-op, 28.1 (20.8) at 12mo Surgical time: 44.9 (22.3) min EBL: 32.7 (32.8) mLHospital stay: 0.8 (range 0-7) days |
Procedure-related adverse events within the first 6mo (180 days): neuropathic symptoms (2), postoperative medical problems (4: urinary retention, nausea/ vomiting, atrial fibrillation), SIJ pain or trochanteric bursitis(4), surgical wound problems (4), iliac fracture (1), asymptomatic physical examination finding (1) |
|||
35 of 46
(NSM patients that crossed over after 6mo visit) |
iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 53.0 (11.5) years Sex: 20F/15MFollow-up: 6mo post-fusion |
VAS: 83.9 pre-op, 35.8 at 6mo post MIS SIJ fusion
ODI: 58.3 pre-op, 30.2 at 6mo post MIS SIJ fusion |
||||||
Duhon 2015 (32) | Prospective, Multi-center | 172 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 50.9 (26-72) years Sex: 102F/70M Prior lumbar fusion: 44%Follow-up: 12mo |
VAS: 7.98 pre-op, 3.0 at 12mo ODI: 55.2 pre-op, 31.4 at 12mo 91% would have surgery again SF-36 PCS: 31.7 pre-op, 48 at 12mo Surgical time: 46.6 (16.1) min EBL: 51(range 5-800) mLHospital stay: 0.8 (range 0-7) days |
Device-related: Neuropathy (2), fall (1), hip pain (1), mild SIJ pain (1). Procedure-related:Wound infection/drainage (5), buttocks/SIJ pain (5), post-op nausea (3), neuropathy (2), staple irritation (1), numbness at wound (1), gluteal artery bleeding (1), urinary retention (1), fall causing SIJ pain (1). |
|||
Whang 2015 (17) | Prospective, multi-center, randomized \ trial of fusion vs. NSM | 102 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 50.2 (26-72) years Sex: 75F/27M Prior lumbar fusion: 38.2% Follow-up: 6mo |
VAS: 8.2 (1.2) pre-op, 2.9 (2.9) at 6mo ODI: 62.2 (14.5) pre-op, 31.9 (22.7) at 6mo EQ5D: 0.44 (0.18) pre-op, 0.72(0.21) Surgical time: 44.9 (22.3) min EBL: 32.7 (32.8) mL Hospital stay: 0.8 (range 0-7) days Success rate: 81.4% |
Trochanteric bursitis (4), surgical wound problems (4), iliac fracture (1), hairline ilium fracture (1), nerve root impingement (1) | |||
46 | N/A (NSM) | N/A | Age: 54.0 (29.5-76.0)) years Sex: 28 F/18M Prior lumbar fusion: 37% Follow-up: 6mo |
VAS: 8.2(1) baseline, 7.0 (2.6) at 6 mo ODI: 61.1(15.3) baseline, 56.4 (20.8) at 6mo EQ5D: 0.47(0.19) baseline, 0.52(0.22) at 6mo Success rate: 23.9% |
N/A | |||||
Vanaclocha 2014 (15) | Single center case series | 24 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 47.4 (32-71) years Sex: 15F/9M Prior lumbar fusion: 2 Follow-up: 23 mo (1-4.5 years) |
VAS: 8.7 pre-op, 1.7 at 1yr, 2.1 at 4.5yrs ODI: 54.1 pre-op, 14.3 at 1yr, 16.3 at 4.5yrs Surgical time: 48 (40-65) min, unilateral cases EBL: 58 (40-70)mL |
Immediate post-op pain (4-resolved), temporary post-op radiculopathic pain (2) | |||
Rudolf, 2014 (19) | Single center case series | 17 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 58 (36-85) years Sex: 13F/4M Prior lumbar fusion: 8 (47%) Follow-up: 60 mo Bridging bone: 87% (13/15) |
VAS: 8.3 (1.4) pre-op, 3.4 (2.4) at 1yr, 1.4 (2.6) at 2yrs, 2.4 (2.2) at 5yrs ODI: 21.5 (22.7) at 5yrs Surgical time: 65 (18) min |
No intraoperative complications, hematoma (1), cellulitis (2), deep wound infection secondary to diverticulitis (1) | |||
Sachs, 2014 (18) | Multi-center, Retrospective | 144 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 58 (30-89)years Sex: 30F/10M Prior lumbar fusion: 62% Follow-up: 16 (12-26) mo |
VAS: 8.6 pre-op, 2.7 at follow-up 91% Very or somewhat satisfied 91.7% would have surgery again Surgical time: 73min EBL: 31mL Hospital stay: 0.8 days |
No intraoperative complications. 28 post-op complications, most common: fall (5), trochanteric bursitis (4), piriformis syndrome (3), facet pain (3). 1 implant revision (1-year revision rate 0.7%), |
|||
Duhon, 2013 (16) | Multi-center, Prospective, single arm. Safety (S) and efficacy (E) cohorts reported | 32 (E) 94 (S) |
iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 50.2 (12.6) years Sex: 21F/11M Prior lumbar fusion: 69% Follow-up: 6 mo |
VAS: 76.2 (16.2) pre-op, 29.3 (23.3) at 6mo ODI: 55.3 (10.7) pre-op, 38.9 (18.5) at 6mo SF-36 PCS: 30.7 (4.3) pre-op, 37 (10.7) at 6mo 88.5% (23/26) success rate Surgical time: 48 (16.1) min EBL: 59 (95) mL Hospital stay: 0.8 days |
No implant revision or removal, 6 AEs probably or definitely procedure-related (2 nausea, 2 wound infections, 1 cellulitis, 1 buttock pain) | |||
Sachs, 2013 (11) | Single center, Retrospective case series |
40 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 58 (30-81) years Sex: 30F/10M Prior lumbar fusion: 30% Follow-up: 12 mo |
VAS: 8.7 (1.5) pre-op, 0.9 (1.6) at 12mo 98% reached MCID 100% patient satisfaction |
Piriformis syndrome (1), new LBP (1), facet joint pain (8), trochanteric bursitis (2) | |||
Cummings, 2013 (27) | Single center, Retrospective case series | 18 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 64 (39-81) years Sex: 12F/6M Prior lumbar fusion: 61% Follow-up: 12 mo |
VAS: 8.9 (1.9) pre-op, 2.3 (2.1) at 12mo 90% reached MCID ODI: 52.6 (18.8) pre-op, 13.2 (12.6) at 12mo SF-12 PCS: 37.8 (10.4) pre-op, 44.6 (10.5) at 12mo |
Trochanteric bursitis (3), hematoma (1), fluid retention (1), toe numbness (1), implant malposition (1) | |||
Gaetani, 2013 (13) | Single center, Retrospective case series |
10 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 53.2 (36-71) years Sex: 12F Prior lumbar fusion: 8.3% Follow-up: 10 (8-18) mo |
VAS: 7.7 (1.3) pre-op, 3 (1.2) at follow-up ODI: 31.4 (6.3) pre-op, 12 (3.5) at follow-up RDQ: 17.6 (1 pre-op, 3 (4.1) at follow-up Surgical time: 65 (16) min EBL: <45 mL 3 month CT scans show initial fusion |
Local hematoma (2), low back pain (1) | |||
Schroeder, 2013 (28) | Single center, Retrospective case series |
6 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 50 (25-60) years Sex: 6F/0M Prior lumbar fusion: 100% (deformity correction) Follow-up: 10.25 (4-15)mo |
VAS: 7.83 pre-op, 2.67 at follow-up ODI: 22.1 pre-op, 10.5 at follow-up Hospital stay: 2 days (range 1-4) Bony bridging seen in 4 patients |
No intraoperative or post-operative complications. | |||
Rudolf, 2013 (25) | Single center, Sub-group analysis | 40 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | *Subgroup analysis from Rudolf 2012 to assess effect of prior lumbar fusion on outcomes. Follow up: 12 and 24 months | |||||
18 | *No prior fusion Age: 49(12) Sex: 12F/6M |
VAS decrease at 12mo: -5.94 (3.3) VAS decrease at 24mo: -5.47 (2.88) Surgical time: 60(19) min |
Superficial cellulitis (2), wound infection (1), revision for implant malposition (1) | |||||||
15 | *Prior lumbar spinal fusion Age: 58(11) Sex: 11F/4M |
VAS decrease at 12mo: -3.5 (3.46) VAS decrease at 24mo: -5.81 (3.5) Surgical time: 64(19) min |
Superficial cellulitis (2), buttock hematoma (1), revision for implant malposition (1) | |||||||
7 | *Concomitant lumbar pathology treated non-surgically Age: 58(17) Sex: 3F/4M |
VAS decrease at 12mo: -3.71 (3.11) VAS decrease at 24mo: -4.79 (4.28) Surgical time: 64(19) min |
None | |||||||
Endres, 2013 (29) | Single center, Retrospective case series | 19 | DIANA cage
[Product not approved for use in the US] |
Posterior, Longitudinally inserted into SI joint |
Age: 60.9 (36-76) years Sex: 5F/14M Prior lumbar fusion: 100% Follow-up: 13.2 (6-24) mo |
VAS: 8.5 (7.5-9) pre-op to 6.0 (2.2-9) at follow-up ODI: 64.1 (40-82) pre-op to 56.97 (8-82) at follow-up EBL: <150mL Hospital stay: 7.3 (3-10) days Fusion rate: 78.9% (15/19 joints), defined as lack of loosening and evidence of bone bridging around the implant |
No neurovascular complications | |||
Mason, 2013 (22) | Retrospective case series | 55 | HMA screw packed with DBM | Lateral approach | Age: 57 years Sex: 46F/9M Prior lumbar fusion: 40% Follow-up: 36 (12-84) mo |
VAS: 8.05 (1.9) pre-op, 4.48 (2.81) at follow-up SF-36PCS: 26.6 (15.2) pre-op, 43 (22.68) follow-up Majeed scoring: 36.18 (15.08) pre-op, 64.78 (20.18) follow-up |
Post-op nerve pain requiring reoperation (2) | |||
Rudolf, 2012 (12) | Single center, Retrospective case series |
50 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 54 (24-85) years Sex: 34F/16M Prior lumbar fusion: 44% Follow-up: 40 (24-56) mo |
VAS: 7.6 pre-op, 2.0 at follow-up 82% reached MCID 82% patient satisfaction Surgical time: 65 (26) min |
Superficial cellulitis (3), deep wound infection (1), hematoma (2), reoperation (3) |
|||
Sachs, 2012 (24) | Single center, Retrospective case series | 11 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | Age: 65 (45-82) years Sex: 10F/1M Prior lumbar fusion: 18% Follow-up: 12 mo |
VAS: 7.9 (2.2) pre-op, 2.3 (3.1) at 12mo Surgical time: 77.5 (31.8) min EBL: 21.8 (18.9) mL |
Piriformis syndrome (1), low back pain (1) | |||
McGuire, 2012 (6) | Retrospective case series | 37 | Fibular allograft dowels | Posterior, Longitudinally inserted into SI joint |
Age: 42.5 (23-63) years Sex: 34F/3M Follow-up: 39.6 (8-62) mo |
Baseline VAS: 9.1 Final VAS: 3.4 Fusion rate: 89.5% |
Nonunion requiring revision (4) (10.5%) | |||
Khurana, 2009 (21) | Retrospective case series | 15 | HMA screw packed with DBM | Lateral approach | Age: 48.7 (37.3-62.6) years Sex: 11F/4M Prior lumbar fusion: 40% Follow-up: 17 (9-39) mo |
SF-36 PF: 37.15 (14.28) pre-op, 79.33 (12.52) at follow-up Majeed’s: 37 (18-54) pre-op, 79 (63-96) at follow-up Good to excellent results: 13/15 EBL: < 50 ml Hospital stay: 2.7 (1-7) days |
No post-operative neurological or wound complications. | |||
Al-Khayer, 2008 (20) |
Retrospective case series | 9 | HMA screw packed with DBM | Lateral approach | Age: 42 (35-56) years Sex: 9F Follow-up: 40 (24-70) mo |
VAS decreased: 8.1 (7-9) to 4.6 (3-7) ODI decreased: 59 (34-70) to 45 (28-60) EBL: <50 ml Hospital stay: 6.9 (2-11) days Return to work: 44.44% |
Deep wound infection requiring debridement and IV antibiotics (1) | |||
Wise, 2008 (23) | Single center Prospective cohort | 13 | Titanium cage packed with BMP |
Posterior, Longitudinally inserted into SI joint |
Age: 53.1 (45-62) years Sex: 12F/1M Prior lumbar fusion: 61.5% Follow-up: 29.5 (24-35) mo |
Back VAS improved by 4.9 pts Leg VAS improved by 2.4 pts EBL: < 100 ml Hospital stay: 1.7 days Fusion rate: 89% (17/19 joints) on CT at 6mo |
Reoperation via open arthrodesis secondary to nonunion and persistent pain (1) |
Comparative Cohort Studies of Open Surgery vs MIS |
|||||||
Author, year | Study design | N | Implant | Technique | Demographics Mean (±SD) or (range), unless otherwise specified |
Results Mean (±SD) or (range), unless otherwise specified |
Complications |
Ledonio, 2014 (30) | Single center Retrospective, comparative cohort study |
22 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | MIS Cohort Age: 47.9 (13.1) years Sex: 17F/5M Prior lumbar fusion: 64% Follow-up: median 15 (12-26) mo |
ODI: 61.5 (12.5) pre-op, 52 (16.9) at follow-up Surgical time: 68.3(26.8) min EBL: 40.5 (31.4) mL Hospital Stay: 2.0 (1.5) days |
(1) pulmonary embolism that resolved with treatment, (2) revisions due to halo formation on the sacral side with recurring sacroiliac joint pain |
22 | 3 hole, 4.5mm plate, autograft packed within joint | Anterior approach through an ilioinguinal incision | Open Cohort Age: 51 (9.4) years Sex:13F/9M Prior lumbar fusion: 50% Follow-up: median 13 (11-33) mo |
ODI: 61.8 (10.8) pre-op, 47.4 (21.7) at follow-up Surgical time: 128 (27.9) min EBL: 168.8 (479.0) mL Hospital Stay: 3.3 (1.1) days |
Pulmonary embolism (1), revision due to failed implant and nerve root irritation (2) | ||
Ledonio 2014 (29) | Multi-center Retrospective, comparative cohort study |
17 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | MIS Cohort Age: median 66 (39-82) years Sex: 11F/6M Prior lumbar fusion: 82% Follow-up: 12 mo |
Values reported as median (range) ODI: 53 (14-84) pre-op, 13 (0-38) at 12 mo Surgical time: 27 (18-72) min Hospital Stay: 1 (1-2) days |
Transient trochanteric bursitis (3), hematoma (1), transient toe numbness (1), revision due to malpositioned implant (1) |
22 | 3 hole, 4.5mm plate, autograft packed within joint | Anterior approach through an ilioinguinal incision | Open Cohort Age: median 51 (34-74) years Sex: 82F/32M Prior lumbar fusion: 47% Follow-up: 24 mo |
Values reported as median (range) ODI: 64 (44-78) pre-op, 46 (10-80) at 12 mo Surgical time: 128 (73-180) min Hospital Stay: 3 (2-6) days |
Pulmonary embolism (1), revision due to failed implant and nerve root irritation (2) | ||
Graham-Smith, 2013 (14) | Multi-center Retrospective comparative cohort study |
114 | iFuse Implant System | Lateral approach | MIS Cohort Age: 57.4 (14.0) years Sex: 82F/32M Prior lumbar fusion: 47.4% Follow-up: 24 mo |
VAS: 8.3 (1.6) pre-op, 2.3 (2.6) at 12mo, 1.7 (2.9) at 24mo MCID: 86% reached at 12mo, 82% at 24mo Surgical time: 70 (24) min EBL: 33 (27) mL Hospital stay: 1.3 (0.5) days |
No intraoperative. Postop repositioning of implants (4), 3.5% (4/114). |
149 | Screws, plates | Open posterior approach | Open Cohort Age: 45.8 (11.3) years Sex: 103F/46M Prior lumbar fusion: 23.5% Follow-up: 24 mo |
VAS: 7.1 (1.9) pre-op, 4.6 (3.0) at 12mo, 5.6 (2.9) at 24mo MCID: 61% reached at 12mo, 50% at 24mo Surgical time: 163 (25) min EBL: 288 (182) mL Hospital stay: 5.1 (1.9) days |
No intraoperative. Postop removal of implants (66), 44% (66/149). |
NOTE: Two systematic reviews of the literature exist:
Abbreviations: F: female; M: male; EBL: estimated blood loss; mo: month; ODI: Oswestry Disability Index; VAS: Visual Analog Scale; NSM: Non-surgical management; DBM: demineralized bone matrix; HMA: hollow modular anchorage; BMP: bone morphogenic protein.
Morgan P. Lorio, MD, FACS reports no disclosures.