Outcome of Percutaneous Sacroiliac Joint Fixation with Porous Plasma-Coated Triangular Titanium Implants: An Independent Review
Jong T Kim 1, Leonard M Rudolf 2, John A Glaser*, 1
1 Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Charleston, SC, USA
2 Alice Peck Day Hosp, Lebanon, NH, USA
Independent retrospective review of a single surgeon’s experience with a new technique of SI fixation.
Examine results of percutaneous fixation of the SI joint with porous coated triangular titanium implants.
Diagnosis and treatment of a dysfunctional sacroiliac joint is challenging as well as controversial. Recently, percutaneous stabilization techniques have been implemented for fixation. There is minimal literature published on this technique.
Charts, radiographs, and CT scans of 31 patients operated on by a single surgeon were de-identified and randomized and then reviewed by investigators not involved with the care of the patients. Reviewers had no relationship with the implant manufacturer at the time of the review. Outcome Measures: intraoperative and postoperative complication, EBL, hospital stays, postoperative image location and number of lucent implants, ingrowth into implants, and bone across SI joint.
27 patients expressed satisfaction, 4 patients did not. Pain relief was noted to be Complete (16 patients), Excellent (5 patients), Good (9 patients), and Fair (1 patients). Four patients had postoperative complications. These were infected hematoma (2), L5 nerve root irritation (1), and L5-S1 discitis (1). One patient required revision. On 6 month postop CT scan, 18/19 patients had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth and bone into or across the SI joint was evident in 8/19 patients. Lucency was noted around at least one implant in 5/19 patients.
Results are promising for the use of this novel implant for a carefully selected group of patients with disabling SI dysfunction.
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/) which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
* Address correspondence to this author at the 96 Jonathan Lucas Street, Suite 708, Charleston, SC 29425, USA; Tel: 843-792-0810; Fax: 843-792-3674; E-mail: email@example.com
Complexity of diagnosis and controversy in treatment make sacroiliac (SI) joint pain a challenging condition to manage. Literature has shown that the SI joint is a legitimate pain generator in patients with low back pain (LBP) although still underappreciated [1Foley BS, Buschbacher RM. Sacroiliac joint pain: anatomy, biomechanics, diagnosis, and treatment Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85: 997-1006.]. Some authors have opined that 15-25% patients who presented with LBP had SI joint etiology [2Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 1440-53.].
The majority of patients with SI joint pain can be treated non operatively. When these treatments fail, some investigators have advocated for SI joint arthrodesis for patients with chronic and debilitating SI joint pain [3Al-Khayer A, Hegarty J, Hahn D, Grevitt MP. Percutaneous sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: a novel technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 359-63.]. However, SI joint arthrodesis in the absence of joint destruction from disease process, trauma, or other causes of severe instability remains controversial [4Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12: 255-65.]. SI joint arthrodesis studies exist that report a varying degree of success, most being satisfactory, for treating chronic and debilitating SI joint pain.
Open and percutaneous approaches have been described in literature for SI joint arthrodesis. Studies have shown the benefits of percutaneous approach to be smaller exposure, less blood loss, preservation of the inherent stability of the SI joint, reduced length of hospital stay, and little wound-related morbidity [3Al-Khayer A, Hegarty J, Hahn D, Grevitt MP. Percutaneous sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: a novel technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 359-63., 5Ebraheim NA, Biyani A. Percutaneous computed tomographic stabilization of the pathologic sacroiliac joint Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 408: 252-5.-8Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 579-84.].
The aim of this study is to independently review the radiographic and surgical results of a new technique of SI fixation. The procedure involves percutaneous placement of triangular titanium implants with a porous plasma spray coating across the SI joint (Figs. 1, 2).
Porous plasma-coated triangular titanium implants (SI-Bone, San Jose, CA). *
Postoperative X-ray at 12 months following SI fixation using iFuse (SI-Bone, San Jose, CA) implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
31 patients under the care of a single surgeon underwent sacroiliac joint fixation between 10/24/2007 to 10/14/2009. There were 7 men and 24 women. Their mean age was 54.3 years at the time of surgery (range 34-85). Mean follow-up period was 13.7 months (range 6-30). 29 of 31 patients had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The demographic information is summarized in Table 1. 23/31 patients had one or more comorbidities with hypertension and hyperlipidemia being most common.
On initial presentation, the chief complaint was posterior SIJ pain in 18 patients, low back pain (LBP) in 10 patients, and combination of SIJ pain and LBP in 3 patients. History was consistent with possible SI joint pain in all patients. 25/31(81%) patients were tender to palpation over posterior SI area. 28/31 (90%) patients had positive SIJ provocative maneuver exam. The mechanism of SI joint injury was identified in 8 patients (falling, car accident, lifting, twisting).
All patients who underwent surgery had chronic sacroiliac pain unresponsive to prolonged nonoperative treatment. Although there were no strict criteria in place for length of time, symptoms were present to decide upon surgery, symptoms were almost universally present for a minimum of six months. All patients had failed a trial of medication and decreased activity. Medications routinely included non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) and often narcotic medication as well. Most had also had a trial of physical therapy. No attempt was made to standardize pre operative treatment protocols prior to surgery. After a trial of nonoperative treatment, patients received SI joint injections of local anesthetic and steroid under CT guidance. All patients had complete or near complete pain relief with sacroiliac joint injections. The diagnosis of sacroiliac disease was based on the history, clinical exam, radiological evaluation, and confirmed as best as possible with diagnostic injections. Only after meeting the above criteria were patients offered and treated with percutaneous SI joint fixation using porous plasma-coated triangular titanium implants (SI-Bone, San Jose, CA). Every procedure was performed by one orthopaedic surgeon. The treating physician has an equity interest in the company manufacturing this implant (estimated $100,000) and is a paid consultant for the company. The other authors had no financial ties to the company at the time of the review. After concluding the study and presentation of the results, one of the other authors has since given an educational talk on diagnosis and treatment of sacro iliac problems. His travel expenses were paid by the company manufacturing this implant (estimated $1000).
The patients were placed prone with the hips flexed. The operative site was sterilely prepped and draped exposing the iliac spine and lateral buttock on affected side. The image intensifier was used to line the site of the incision. A 3 cm incision was made over the superior posterior portion of the sacrum. Dissection was carried down through the skin and subcutaneous tissue. The fascia of the gluteal muscles was perforated to allow for pin and broach placement.
A guide pin was then passed into the superior sacrum. This was checked in the AP and lateral planes. The length of iFuse Implant (SI-Bone, San Jose, CA) was determined. A tissue guide was placed over the superior pin to drill to the desired depth corresponding to the length of the fusion rod. With drill removed, a broach was impacted across SI joint using a slap hammer under radiographic visualization. Then, the appropriate sized implant was inserted. This was repeated, as needed, for additional implant placement. With image intensifier, AP, inlet, outlet, and lateral views were checked to evaluate the implant position. Twenty seven out of thirty one patients had three implants placed.
Post operative management consisted primarily of protected, partial weight bearing ambulation. Initially this was for eight weeks but after the first six months of doing the procedure, this was shortened to six weeks. Physical therapy was prescribed if the treating physician felt it necessary.
After appropriate Institutional Review Board approval, medical charts, plain radiographs, and CT scans were reviewed retrospectively by investigators to determine the radiographic and surgical outcomes. The reviewers had no relationship with the patients or with the company producing the implants.
Plain radiographs and CT scans were evaluated to assess radiographic outcome of the procedure. Each patient obtained x-ray and CT scan at 6 and 12 months post-operatively. These were de-identified and randomized prior to radiographic assessment. Radiographic outcome consisted of evaluating presence and extent of osseous ingrowth into the implant surface (Fig. 4), lucency that may imply loosening. (Fig. 3A, B), bone growth across the sacroiliac joint (Fig. 4), and radiographic complications such as fracture, violation of the sacral foramina or evidence of loosening. A single practicing spinal Orthopaedic surgeon evaluated all of the studies. A single Orthopaedic resident reviewed and documented all records.
(A, B) AP radiograph and axial CT demonstrating lucencies around implants.
CT showing near complete bone bridging.
Medical charts including operative notes were retrospectively reviewed to assess surgical outcome of the procedure. Surgical outcome consisted of identifying intra-operative/postoperative complications, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain relief, EBL, and hospital stay.
There were no intraoperative complications. Estimated blood loss was minimal in each case. Every patient was discharged home on post-operative day 1. One patient (3%) required a revision due to nerve root irritation by an implant. Two (6%) developed incisional hematomas that resolved with observation and one developed de novo L5-S1 discitis. At the most recent follow up, 16 (52%) patients reported no pain after the procedure, and 14 (45%) patients reported good to excellent pain relief. All walked full weight-bearing by 16 weeks. 27/31 (87%) patients expressed satisfaction with the procedure. Surgical outcomes are summarized in Table 2 and Fig. (5).
Surgical Outcomes in 31 Patients
Graphic representations of outcomes.
26 patients had immediate postoperative imaging reviewed. Of these, 21 (81%) had implants fully within the bone of the ilium and sacrum (Table 3). With the exception of the patient who underwent revision, extra osseous position did not seem to correlate with outcome. 19 patients had imaging available at 6 months after surgery (Table 4). Of these, 18/19 (95%) patients had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth into at least one side (sacral or iliac) of the implant on CT scan. Bone growth into or across the SI joint was evident in 8/19 (42%) patients although definite bony arthrodesis was not seen. There also was noted to be a lucency around at least one side of an implant in 5/19 (26%) patients. 15 patients had imaging available at one year after surgery (Table 4). 4/15 (27%) patients had continued lucency around at least one implant. None had lucency around all three. Somewhat more bone was seen within the joint when compared to the six month imaging but clear bony arthrodesis remained uncommon. 4/31 (13%) patients were not satisfied with their result although three of them reported good pain relief. Details are given in Table 5.
Immediate Postoperative Radiographic Images for
6 and 12 Month Postoperative CT Scans
The SI joint was widely viewed as a potential source of low back pain and dysfunction until 1930’s when the idea that facet arthrosis and lumbar disc disease can cause low back pain arose [9Dandy WE. Loose cartilage from intervertebral disk simulating tumor of the spinal cord Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 238: 4-8.,10Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc, with involvement of the spinal canal N Engl J Med 1934; 211: 210-5.]. As this idea gained popularity and acceptance, it seemed to push the SI joint pain and dysfunction theory into obscurity [11Keating GJ, Avillar MD, Price M. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis in
selected patients with low back pain In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Dorman T, Eds. Movement, Stability and Low Back Pain. New York: Churchill Livingston 1999; pp. 573-86.]. While SI joint pain and dysfunction remain a controversial and challenging topic, it appears that SI joint may be an underappreciated etiology of low back pain [4Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12: 255-65.]. Currently, it is felt that dysfunctional SI joint is the culprit in 15-25% patients who present with low back pain [2Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 1440-53.].
The published literature on surgical treatment of chronic painful SI joint dysfunction dates back to early 20th century. A literature search yielded 11 articles describing open procedure [11Keating GJ, Avillar MD, Price M. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis in
selected patients with low back pain In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Dorman T, Eds. Movement, Stability and Low Back Pain. New York: Churchill Livingston 1999; pp. 573-86.-21Waisbrod H, Krainick JU, Gerbershagen HU. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis for chronic lower back pain Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1987; 106: 238-40.] and 5 articles describing percutaneous procedure [3Al-Khayer A, Hegarty J, Hahn D, Grevitt MP. Percutaneous sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: a novel technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 359-63., 5Ebraheim NA, Biyani A. Percutaneous computed tomographic stabilization of the pathologic sacroiliac joint Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 408: 252-5.-8Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 579-84.] for surgically treating chronic SI joint problems. These studies, most of them being a small retrospective case series, reported well to excellent improvement in pain and/or function in 168 out of 211 patients (79.6%). When divided further into open procedure and percutaneous procedure studies, the satisfactory clinical results were 77.2% and 88.6%, respectively. Every open procedure study needed bone graft harvest for SI joint arthrodesis while six out of 11 studies required external immobilization postoperatively. On the other hand, only one out of five percutaneous procedure study required bone graft harvest and external immobilization.
Treating a chronic SI joint dysfunction surgically still remains controversial, but it appears that SI joint arthrodesis or fixation can produce favorable and clinically satisfactory outcome with acceptable rate of complications. Based on the published studies, surgical arthrodesis or fixation is a viable option for patients with chronic debilitating SI joint dysfunction. Because most patients can be managed non operatively, surgical procedures should be considered for a carefully selected group of patients not responding to non operative management [1Foley BS, Buschbacher RM. Sacroiliac joint pain: anatomy, biomechanics, diagnosis, and treatment Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85: 997-1006.].
Percutaneous SI fixation using porous plasma-coated triangular titanium implants has not been previously described in literature. This has the advantage of being minimally invasive and potential advantage of not requiring the use of bone graft to achieve long term stabilization. The surgical outcome of this new procedure has been positive in most patients in this study. There were no intraoperative complications. EBL was minimal in each case. Every patient was discharged on post-operative day 1. 27 out of 31 patients reported satisfaction with the procedure. Postoperative pain relief was good, excellent, or complete in 30 out of 31 patients. However, there were 4 postoperative complications in which one patient with L5 nerve root irritation required revision. The other three patients had an uneventful postoperative course despite having infected hematoma and discitis, which was treated appropriately.
It is unclear from the radiographic review whether these patients will go on to develop a bony arthrodesis of the SI joint. Although a significant percentage did show some evidence of bone growth in to the joint, we do not have enough longitudinal radiographic information to know if this process continues. It is also unclear at present whether radiographic evidence of foramenal violation, cortical violation, or lucencies seen on CT scan at 6 and 12 months has an effect on clinical outcome. A much larger sample will be needed to determine this.
In our study, there were 4 patients who were not satisfied with this procedure. They were all female patients with mean age of 55.3 years, and three of them had previous spine surgery. Only one patient was involved in a worker’s compensation case. Postoperatively, two patients were not compliant with non-weight bearing status until the first postoperative clinic visit. One patient was doing well postoperatively until sustaining a fall down a full flight of stairs. After the fall, the preoperative SI pain returned. One of the unsatisfied patient’s postoperative courses was complicated by superficial infected hematoma that required 4 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. This patient reported persistent pain in the lumbosacral junction region although this pain was relieved close to 100% by preoperative CT-guided injection.
The radiographic and surgical outcomes of this new technique of percutaneous SI fixation were independently reviewed. The result of this new novel percutaneous SI fixation using porous plasma-coated triangular titanium implants is promising and compares well with other published clinical studies. SI fixation with this novel implant provides advantageous bony interference fit to decrease motion postoperatively as well as probable bony ingrowth into porous biologically friendly implant surface for long term stability. Literature to date has shown that percutaneous approach to SI fixation or arthrodesis has a higher rate of clinical success, less need for bone harvest, infrequent postoperative immobilization requirement, shorter length of hospital stay, and less wound-related morbidity [3Al-Khayer A, Hegarty J, Hahn D, Grevitt MP. Percutaneous sacroiliac joint arthrodesis: a novel technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 359-63., 5Ebraheim NA, Biyani A. Percutaneous computed tomographic stabilization of the pathologic sacroiliac joint Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 408: 252-5.-8Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 579-84.].
When patients with chronic disabling SI joint pain fail conservative treatments, we feel that percutaneous SI fixation and/or arthrodesis is an option for a carefully selected group of patients in the hands of meticulous and experienced surgeon. In this study the selection process included; diagnosis of the sacroiliac joint as being a likely pain generator by history, physical examination, imaging and diagnostic intra articular injection as well as lack of response to prolonged non operative measures.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Dr. Kim - No conflicts.
Dr. Glaser - Consultant Depuy Spine $500, Travel Expenses SI bone (after completion of this study) $1000.
Dr. Rudolf Stock ownership $100,000, and paid consultant SI Bone.
The implant discussed in this manuscript is FDA approved for the diagnoses of degenerative sacro-iliitis and sacro-iliac disruption.
Foley BS, Buschbacher RM. Sacroiliac joint pain: anatomy, biomechanics, diagnosis, and treatment Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 85: 997-1006.
Cohen SP. Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, diagnosis, and treatment Anesth Analg 2005; 101: 1440-53.
Dreyfuss P, Dreyer SJ, Cole A, Mayo K. Sacroiliac joint pain J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12: 255-65.
Ebraheim NA, Biyani A. Percutaneous computed tomographic stabilization of the pathologic sacroiliac joint Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 408: 252-5.
Guner G, Gurer S, Elmali N, Ertem K. Anterior sacroiliac fusion: a new video-assisted endoscopic technique Surg Laparosc Endosc 1998; 8: 233-6.
Khurana A, Guha AR, Mohanty K, Ahuja S. Percutaneous fusion of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws: clinical and radiological outcome J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 627-31.
Wise CL, Dall BE. Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 579-84.
Dandy WE. Loose cartilage from intervertebral disk simulating tumor of the spinal cord Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 238: 4-8.
Mixter WJ, Barr JS. Rupture of the intervertebral disc, with involvement of the spinal canal N Engl J Med 1934; 211: 210-5.
Keating GJ, Avillar MD, Price M. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis in
selected patients with low back pain In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Dorman T, Eds. Movement, Stability and Low Back Pain. New York: Churchill Livingston 1999; pp. 573-86.
Belanger TA, Dall BE. Sacroiliac arthrodesis using a posterior midline fascial splitting approach and pedicle screw instrumentation: a new technique J Spinal Disord 2001; 14: 118-24.
Berthelot JM, Gouin F, Glemarec J, Maugars Y, Prost A. Possible use of arthrodesis for intractable sacroiliitis in spondylarthropathy: report of two cases Spine 2001; 26: 2297-9.
Buchowski JM, Kebaish KM, Sinkov V, Cohen DB, Sieber AN, Kostuik JP. Functional and radiographic outcome of sacroiliac arthrodesis for the disorders of the sacroiliac joint Spine J 2005; 5: 520-9.
Campbell WC. An operation for extra-articular fusion of the sacroiliac joint Surg Gynecol Obstet 1927; 45: 218-9.
Giannikas KA, Khan AM, Karski MT, Maxwell HA. Sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic pain: a simple technique avoiding the use of metalwork Eur Spine J 2004; 13: 253-6.
Moore MR. Surgical Treatment of chronic painful sacroiliac joint dysfunction In: Vleeming A, Mooney V, Dorman T, Eds. Movement, Stability and Low Back Pain. New York: Churchill Livingston 1999; pp. 563-72.
Rand JA. Anterior sacro-iliac arthrodesis for post-traumatic sacroiliac arthritis. A case report J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67: 157-9.
Smith-Peterson MN, Rogers WA. End-result of arthrodesis of the sacro-iliac joint for arthritis-traumatic and non-traumatic J Bone Joint Surg Am 1926; 8: 118-36.