The Open Orthopaedics Journal




ISSN: 1874-3250 ― Volume 13, 2019
CASE REPORT

Pain and Opioid use Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion with Decortication and Bone Grafting: The Evolusion Clinical Trial



Ali Araghi1, Robert Woodruff2, Kyle Colle3, Christopher Boone4, Lisa Ingham5, Antoine Tomeh6, Louis C Fielding7, *
1 The CORE Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
2 Black Hills Orthopedic and Spine Center, Rapid City, South Dakota, United States
3 Regional Brain and Spine, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, United States
4 Bellevue Bone and Joint Physicians, Bellevue, Washington, United States
5 Zyga Technology, Inc. Minnetonka, Minnesota, United States
6 Northwest Orthopaedic Specialists, Spokane, Washington, United States
7 Tahoe Labs, LLC, 1057 Montgomery St., San Carlos, 94070 California, United States

Abstract

Purpose:

This report documents six-month results of the first 50 patients treated in a prospective, multi-center study of a minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion system.

Patients and Methods:

This cohort includes 50 patients who had MI SI joint fusion surgery and completed 6 month follow-up. Average age at baseline was 61.5, 58% were female, and SI joint-related pain duration was ≥2yrs in 54.0% of patients. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) SI joint pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), quality of life and opioid use were assessed preoperatively and at 6 months.

Results:

At 6 months, mean VAS pain demonstrated a significant reduction from 76.2 at baseline to 35.1 (54% reduction, p<0.0001), with 72% of patients attaining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, ≥20 point improvement). Mean ODI improved from 55.5 to 35.3 at 6 months (p < 0.001), with 56% of patients achieving the MCID (≥15 point improvement). Prior to surgery 33/50 (66%) of patients were taking opioids, but by 6 months the number of patients taking opioids had decreased by 55% to 15/50 (30%). Few procedural complications were reported. Two procedure-related events required hospitalization: a revision procedure (2%) for nerve impingement and one case of ongoing low back pain.

Conclusion:

Analysis of patients treated with MI SI joint fusion using the SImmetry System demonstrated that the procedure can be performed safely and results in significant improvements in pain, disability, and opioid use at 6 months. Longer term follow-up in this study will determine whether these improvements are durable, as well as the associated radiographic fusion rates.

Keywords:: Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction,, Sacroiliac Joint Fusion, , SI Joint, , SI Joint Arthrodesis, , Minimally Invasive Surgery, , Sacroiliac, , Fusion, , Arthrodesis. .


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2017
Volume: 11
First Page: 1440
Last Page: 1448
Publisher Id: TOORTHJ-11-1440
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001711011440

Article History:

Received Date: 08/11/2017
Revision Received Date: 05/12/2017
Acceptance Date: 07/12/2017
Electronic publication date: 27/12/2017
Collection year: 2017

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 2473
Abstract HTML Views: 1212
PDF Downloads: 558
ePub Downloads: 499
Total Views/Downloads: 4742

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1209
Abstract HTML Views: 644
PDF Downloads: 203
ePub Downloads: 152
Total Views/Downloads: 2208
Geographical View

© 2017 Araghi et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Tahoe Labs, LLC, 1057 Montgomery St., San Carlos, California 94070, United States; Tel: 206-953-9839; Fax: 650-585-6307; E-mail: tahoelabs@gmail.com





1. INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion has become a preferred treatment alternative for pain originating in the SI joint that is refractory to conservative treatment [1Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: A multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res 2013; 7(1): 14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14] [PMID: 24172188]
-3Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, et al. Randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: 12-month outcomes. Neurosurgery 2015; 77(5): 674-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000988] [PMID: 26291338]
]. With the increasing popularity of this procedure, there are now more than 20 implantable devices indicated for SI joint fixation, yet there is minimal published clinical data to understand the merits or comparative effectiveness of the different systems that are available. Within the clinical publications of MI SI joint fusion, there is even less data regarding actual fusion rates [4Heiney J, Capobianco R, Cher D. A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/2040] [PMID: 26273558]
].

An MI SI joint fusion system incorporating decortication, bone grafting and fixation with threaded implants has demonstrated encouraging results in smaller case series [5MenMuir B, Fielding LC. Revision of minimally invasive Ssacroiliac joint fixation: Technical considerations and case studies using decortication and threaded implant fixation. Int J Spine Surg 2017; 11: 8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/4008] [PMID: 28377866]
, 6Cross WW III, Delbridge A, Hales D, Fielding LC. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: 2-year radiographic and clinical outcomes with a principles-based SIJ fusion system in press 2017.]. This study is an interim report of the six month results of the first 50 patients enrolled in a prospective, multi-center study of this system that will evaluate pain, quality of life, opioid use and radiographic fusion outcomes.

2. METHODS

2.1. Trial Design

This is a report of the first 50 patients participating in a prospective, multicenter evaluation of the SImmetry Sacroiliac Joint Fusion System (Zyga Technology, Minnetonka, MN) in the EVoluSIon study (EVSI). EVSI is to be conducted at up to 40 centers in the United States, enrolling up to 250 patients, and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02074761. The protocol was approved by each participating center’s institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to enrollment. Patients were screened from each investigator’s population of patients indicated for minimally invasive SI joint fusion. The key inclusion criteria for participation were 18 years of age or greater; at least six months of non-operative management of SI joint pain; three positive provocative tests (FABER, Gaenslen, Compression, Thigh Thrust, Distraction) [7Szadek KM, Van Der Wurff P, Van Tulder MW, Zuurmond WW, Perez RS. Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: A systematic review. J Pain 2009; 10(4): 354-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.09.014] [PMID: 19101212]
]; at least one positive diagnostic SI joint injection [8Hansen HC, McKenzie-Brown AM, Cohen SP, Swicegood JR, Colson JD, Manchikanti L. Sacroiliac joint interventions: A systematic review. Pain Physician 2007; 10(1): 165-84.
[PMID: 17256029]
, 9Manchikanti L, Abdi S, Atluri S, et al. An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations. Pain Physician 2013; 16(2)(Suppl 2): S49-S283.
[PMID: 23615883]
]; Visual Analog Scale (VAS) SI joint pain score of 60 or greater; and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of at least 40. Potential participants were excluded for any of the following reasons: pelvic soft tissue or bony tumors; trauma causing fracture of the sacrum or iliac bones or spinal trauma leading to a neurological deficit; history of a central nervous system disorder(s); painful hip and/or knee arthrosis with potential progression to hip and/or knee arthroplasty; indication for or awaiting other spine surgery; pregnancy or planned pregnancy in the next two years; uncontrolled insulin dependent diabetes mellitus; chemical dependency or substance abuse; receiving or seeking worker’s compensation, disability remuneration, or involved in litigation related to low back or SI joint pain; and history of significant emotional or psychosocial disturbance.

Baseline data collection included medical history, prior treatments and surgeries, provocative maneuvers to confirm the diagnosis of SI joint dysfunction, diagnostic SI joint injections and pain medication usage. Eligible patients were asked to complete a questionnaire which included self-evaluation of various elements: 1) SI joint pain as measured by a VAS from 0 to 100, where 0 represented no pain and 100 represented the worst possible pain; 2) disability due to low back pain as measured by the validated ODI survey; and 3) quality of life through the EQ-5D and SF-36 questionnaires. The patient questionnaires and pain medication usage were collected pre-operatively and at specified time points of 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and will be continued through 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Patient questionnaires were self-reported and completed by each patient prior to meeting with the investigator to limit bias. All patient qualification and endpoint data were monitored and source verified for accuracy in reporting and compliance. Data were collected and reported via electronic database (Fortress Medical Systems, Hopkins, MN).

Fusion will be evaluated through collection of thin-slice computed tomography (CT) images at 12 months. Fusion assessments for the primary endpoint will be analyzed and reported after at least 50 patients have completed the 12 month visit.

2.2. Surgical Procedure

The surgical procedure included MI SI joint fusion using the SImmetry System in accordance with approved labeling. The implant system includes a 12.5 mm diameter cannulated implant placed through the location of decortication and an 8.5 mm diameter anti-rotational implant for mechanical stability. Both are threaded implants made of titanium with a surface roughness designed for osseointegration.

The procedure has been described elsewhere [10Beaubien B, Salib RM, Fielding LC, Block JE. SImmetry sacroiliac joint fusion system with sImmetry decorticator. Surgical Science 2015; 06(07): 282-91.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ss.2015.67042]
-12Kube RA, Muir JM. Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: One Year clinical and radiographic results following minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery. Open Orthop J 2016; 10: 679-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001610010679] [PMID: 28144378]
]. Briefly, four steps are performed as in (Fig. 1): minimally invasive lateral access; joint preparation via decortication; bone graft placement; and implant delivery. The joint preparation occurs through use of a proprietary decorticator to remove cartilage and prepare up to 50% of the SI joint surface as an active bleeding fusion bed for bone graft material. Bone graft (autologous bone with or without allograft and/or demineralized bone matrix) is then packed into the decorticated area, before the cannulated implant is placed across the area of decortication. A secondary anti-rotational implant is then placed.

Fig. (1)
(a) Minimally invasive lateral access of the SI joint; (b) Decortication of the joint (inset: user-interface of decorticator instrument); (c) Delivery of bone graft into the actively bleeding fusion bed (inset: fluoroscopic image during decortication); (d) Final placement of the threaded implant through the area of decortication and a secondary device for stability.


2.3. Statistical Methods

The primary objectives of the broader trial, of which these patients represent an initial series, are to evaluate SI joint pain relief and radiographic evidence of fusion after implantation with the SImmetry System. Ultimately two primary endpoints will be studied which include: 1) A decrease in SI joint pain from baseline to 6 month follow-up as evaluated by use of a patient-reported 100mm VAS; and 2) Radiographic evidence of SI joint fusion at 12 and 24 months post-surgery. Fusion is defined as presence of a continuous segment of solid bridging bone that extends from the sacrum to the ilium. Predefined statistical analyses described in the protocol include the primary endpoint analysis of VAS SI joint pain scores beginning with the 6-month follow-up visit. Pain relief post-implantation was evaluated at each follow-up interval with descriptive statistical analyses (mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum). Interim analyses to monitor the progress of the trial are predefined at intervals of every 50 enrolled patients at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months.

VAS pain and ODI reductions were also defined in terms of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 20 points on the VAS scale and 15 points on the ODI scale. Multiple secondary analyses were predefined in the protocol, including assessment of ODI, EQ-5D, SF-36, procedure data, employment status, safety, and comparison of baseline and procedural data to outcomes of pain reduction and fusion. Statistical analyses to assess improvements following treatment using the pre-operative and follow-up VAS, ODI, and quality of life measures for each patient over time, using linear repeated measures models fit via maximum likelihood and a compound symmetric covariance structure, with results presented by visit and for the overall follow-up period. 95% confidence intervals on the mean changes from the pre-operative result in ODI and VAS scores were computed. Procedural data were summarized with descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses for the primary endpoints were planned to determine if baseline or procedural characteristics differentiate subjects in terms of outcomes. Logistic and linear regression models were used for these analyses for the endpoints as appropriate.

While 12 month follow-up results were not available at this interim analysis, the statistical analysis plan required that rates for fusion be reported as percentages of implanted subjects who show evidence of radiographic fusion at the 12 and 24 month follow-up visits.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Patient Demographics and Baseline Characteristics

The analysis cohort presented here includes the first 50 patients enrolled who had MI SI joint fusion surgery and completed a 6 month follow-up visit. This was accomplished by enrolling patients at 13 institutions. The average age at baseline was 61.5 years, the majority were female (58.0%), and SI joint-related pain duration was at least two years in 54.0% of patients. Half of the patients never used tobacco and only four patients (8.0%) were currently using cigarettes at the time of enrollment. The vast majority of patients were not working pre-surgery (82%) and many had a prior lumbar surgery (54%).

The mean SI joint VAS pain was 76.2±11.3 (mean±SD; range: 60-100) and the ODI was 55.5 ±14.4 (range 20-80; ODI baseline score below 40 is a protocol deviation as the baseline requirement for inclusion was at least 40). Sixty-six percent (66%) of patients were taking opioids prior to surgery. Baseline characteristics are further summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Baseline Characteristics of Trial Participants.


3.2. Surgical Procedure

Fifty (50) patients underwent planned SI joint fusion surgery with the SImmetry System per the manufacturer’s instructions for use. All but one procedure (49) were unilateral; the other procedure (1) was bilateral. The average procedure time was 57 minutes (range 25 to 92 minutes) and estimated blood loss averaged 69cc. The hospital stay duration was a mean of one day with 96.0% of patients discharged within less than 2 days of the procedure. Procedural data are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Surgical procedure data. data summarized as mean ± SD (minimum, maximum) or n/N (%).


3.3. Outcomes

At the 6 month follow-up visit, mean VAS SI joint pain had decreased more than 41 points, from 76.2 at baseline to 35.1. This represented a statistically significant (p < 0.0001) reduction in pain of 54%. The proportion of patients attaining the MCID (i.e., a reduction of at least 20 out of 100 points) was 72% (N=36). For patients achieving the MCID, their average reduction in pain during the same time frame was 74%.

Similar to the reduction in pain, ODI results demonstrated a significant improvement in disability scores after SI joint fusion surgery. Mean ODI improved from 55.5 at baseline to 35.3 at the 6 month follow-up (p < 0.001), demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in disability related to SI joint pain. The MCID of a decrease of 15 points was achieved by 56% (N=28) of patients. Covariate analysis of VAS and ODI outcomes with baseline and procedural characteristics did not demonstrate any statistically significant findings during this analysis.

In addition to improvements in pain and disability, a significant decline in opioid use was reported. Prior to minimally invasive surgery 33/50 (66%) of patients were taking opioids, but by 6 months post-surgery the number of patients taking opioids had decreased to 15/50 (30%, p=0.0004). Additional evaluation of patients reporting a MCID in pain showed only 19% (7/36) of these patients continuing to use opioids 6 months postoperatively. A decrease in non-opioid pain medications was reported as well. At baseline 70.0% of patients were taking NSAIDs, 46.0% were taking other analgesics, and 22.0% were taking steroids. The percentage of patients taking NSAIDS, analgesics and steroids at the 6 month follow-up decreased to 20.4%, 22.5% and 2.0%, respectively.

Quality of life assessments were collected during follow-up visits using both the EQ-5D and SF-36 questionnaires. The mean EQ-5D time trade-off index was 0.51 at baseline and increased to 0.69 (p<0.0001) 6 months post-surgery, a statistically significant change. In the same assessment, the global health thermometer rating was 56.1 at baseline compared to 68.2 (p<0.0001) 6 months post-surgery.

The SF-36 includes both physical and mental components of a norm-based quality of life questionnaire. The mean physical component was 30.84 at baseline and increased to 36.41 (SD 10.52) at the 6 month time point (p=0.0001). Meanwhile the mental component changed from a mean baseline score of 42.21 to 48.50 (SD 11.34) at 6 months (p=0.0016). Both represent statistically significant improvements in this cohort.

3.4. Complications

Few complications related to the procedure or implanted devices were reported. Serious adverse events, including events resulting in hospitalization, were reported for two patients. One patient had radiculopathy post-surgery and nerve impingement was suggested by CT as the implanted device extended into the S1 canal. This event led to a revision procedure in which the implant was replaced with a shorter length device. Radiculopathy symptoms resolved immediately after the revision procedure. The second serious event was an ongoing case of low back pain resulting in inpatient hospitalization to manage pain.

Investigators reported eight other surgical related events, but none were deemed serious in nature, nor required intervention. There was one revision (2%) in 50 patients through the 6 month visit as noted above.

4. DISCUSSION

Early results from this prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated that MI SI joint fusion surgery with decortication, bone grafting and fixation with threaded implants resulted in an average pain reduction of 54%, and that 72% of patients had a MCID (improvement >20 points) within the first 6 months post-surgery. Improvement in pain reduction was echoed in the results for disability where a statistically significant and clinically substantial improvement was reported by patients. Residual pain may be due to multifactorial degenerative lumbosacral pathology, neuroplastic effects or other inorganic causes, however was characteristic of this patient population [13Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3013] [PMID: 27162715]
, 14Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-Year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 28.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3028] [PMID: 27652199]
]. The most significant finding from this interim analysis, however, was the reduction in opioid use. More than half of the patients taking opioids at baseline were no longer taking those medications at the 6 month follow-up; only 30% of subjects were still using opioids for pain management at 6 months. In comparison, other clinical studies of MI SI joint fusion reported 58% of patients still using opioids at 6 months and 48% to 55% of patients still using opioids at 24 months postoperatively [13Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3013] [PMID: 27162715]
, 14Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-Year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 28.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3028] [PMID: 27652199]
]. Similar reductions were seen in non-opioid pain medication use, including NSAIDs, analgesics and steroids, further indicating that these patients experienced substantial relief of pain 6 months postoperatively.

SImmetry is one of numerous products cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for minimally invasive implantation in patients with SI joint dysfunction. These devices are neither experimental nor investigational. While clinical trial data are not required, only a few of the 20+ implantable devices indicated for SI joint fixation have published clinical data available for comparison with the current trial. The most relevant information is from a two-year published trial with triangular titanium implants, called SIFI [13Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3013] [PMID: 27162715]
, 15Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Kovalsky DA, Lockstadt H. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: A Prospective Study 2015.]. SIFI was sponsored by the device manufacturer, had similar inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a single arm enrollment design of 172 patients followed through two years (Table 3). The study population only differed in the baseline lower limits for VAS and ODI, such that SIFI enrolled patients with a minimum VAS of 50 and ODI of 30, while the current study enrolled only those with a minimum VAS of 60 and ODI of 40. Both studies are single arm, prospective, multi-center trials with a primary objective of pain reduction at 6 months, with similar data collection and follow-up intervals. The current EVSI trial has an additional primary endpoint of fusion which will be radiographically assessed by an independent core laboratory at 12 and conditionally 24 months if fusion is not yet demonstrated at 12 months. The products used in each trial have a similar indication and both implore a minimally invasive technique, which allow for a device-to-device comparison of the trial results.

Table 3
Comparison of baseline and 6 month outcomes of similar trials with MI SI joint implants.


EVSI and SIFI had similar patient populations with the primary differences being average age (EVSI=61.5, SIFI 50.9), gender (EVSI=58.0% female; SIFI=69.8% female), baseline opioid use (EVSI=66%, SIFI=76%), and sample size (EVSI=50, SIFI=172). Baseline VAS (EVSI=76.2, SIFI=79.8) and ODI (EVSI=55.5, SIFI=55.2) were very similar despite the differences in age, gender, opioid use and inclusion criteria. Revisions occurred in 2.0% of patients in EVSI through 6 months and 4.7% of patients in SIFI through two years. In comparing 6 month outcomes of these two trials, both achieved a statistically significant reduction in average pain compared to pre-surgery (54% EVSI, 62% SIFI), and a reduction in disability (20 points EVSI, 23 points SIFI). Both trials showed a reduction in opioid use through 6 months as well, although the EVSI cohort had a much greater reduction (33/50 to 15/50 or 55% reduction in EVSI; 76% to 60%, or 21% reduction in SIFI) [13Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3013] [PMID: 27162715]
, 15Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Kovalsky DA, Lockstadt H. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: A Prospective Study 2015.].

The similarity in results of the EVSI and SIFI studies demonstrate that fixation of the SI joint results in pain relief, regardless of the type of implant used. It is notable that fusion rates with MI SI joint fusion systems are not well reported in the literature [4Heiney J, Capobianco R, Cher D. A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/2040] [PMID: 26273558]
], in contrast to other studies of spinal fusion where radiographic arthrodesis is considered an important success criterion [16Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG. Two-Year Comparative outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Part II: Radiographic Findings. Spine 2016; 41(Suppl. 8): S133-44.
[PMID: 26839992]
, 17Hurlbert RJ, Alexander D, Bailey S, et al. RHBMP-2 for posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion: A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial. Spine 2013; 38(25): 2139-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000007] [PMID: 24296479]
]. Long-term evidence of whether SI joint fusion is achieved through fixation still needs to be evaluated, and is a key objective of this study. Additionally, factors that contribute to the long-term pain relief of patients should continue to be studied. Additional patients and longer-term follow-up in the EVSI trial may help to define similarities or further distinctions between different types of implants for the SI joint.

Previous prospective studies have demonstrated the importance of fixation of the SI joint in reducing pain and improving disability status. Comparatively, reduction in VAS pain 6 months after MI SI joint surgery has been reported as 63% and 50% with patient sample sizes of 101 and 18, respectively [12Kube RA, Muir JM. Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: One Year clinical and radiographic results following minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery. Open Orthop J 2016; 10: 679-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001610010679] [PMID: 28144378]
, 14Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-Year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 28.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3028] [PMID: 27652199]
]. These are comparable to the EVSI cohort of 50 patients in which a 54% reduction in average pain was shown during the same interval.

The greatest limitations with this trial are the sample size and limited follow-up. The current data represent the first interim analysis of what will be the largest cohort of patients prospectively enrolled in a trial to evaluate both fusion and pain following MI SI joint fusion surgery. An additional 200 patients are planned to be enrolled to provide enough statistical power to determine contributing factors to fusion and pain relief. At present, this interim analysis of 50 patients provides sufficient positive outcome data to validate continuing with the trial protocol through two years of follow-up.

Another limitation of this trial is a lack of a control group. The comparison of minimally invasive SI joint fixation to non-surgical therapy was previously established in a randomized trial reported by Polly, et al. [14Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-Year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 28.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3028] [PMID: 27652199]
] Results from the trial demonstrated that the surgery group had a substantially significant improvement in pain compared to non-surgical therapy group. Greater improvement in disability and quality of life was also shown in the surgical group with results lasting through two years. In light of the superior results shown with SI joint surgery, we feel there is no clinical equipoise to suggest that additional randomized controlled trials would be acceptable [18Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987; 317(3): 141-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198707163170304] [PMID: 3600702]
]. Instead, the purpose of this trial is to evaluate patient outcomes using the technology of decortication, bone grafting and threaded implants described herein. In this discussion the results are compared to a similar study of another MI SIJ fusion system. While this comparison provides relevant context, it must be acknowledged that differences in methodology, investigational site standards of care, and even changes in public attitudes toward opioid painkillers could impact differences seen in the results of the two studies.

This trial evaluated a 6 month endpoint for pain reduction, but clinically the ultimate goal is long-term pain relief. While implantation of SI joint devices aims to stabilize the joint, the ultimate goal is fusion of the joint to achieve long-term relief. Fusion of the SI joint has been understudied and reports of SI joint fusion range from 6 months to five years [4Heiney J, Capobianco R, Cher D. A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/2040] [PMID: 26273558]
, 19Kube RA, Ed. Sacro-Iliac Fusion Rates Using a Novel MIS System. 15th Annual meeting of the international society for the advancement of spine surgery 2015 April 15-17, 2015; San Diego, CA. -21Cross WW III, Delbridge A, Hales D, Eds. Evaluation of radiographic fusion after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery. 17th Annual Conference 2017 April 12-14, 2017; Boca Raton, FL. ]. Additional follow-up and evaluation of radiographs collected at 12 and 24 months will help to further define permanent fusion of the SI joint and patient and procedural characteristics that may contribute to fusion and long-term pain relief.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive SI joint fusion surgery with decortication, bone graft and threaded implant fixation results in pain and disability improvement through 6 months with few complications. This interim analysis demonstrates that the procedure can be performed safely, resulting in an average reduction in pain of 54%, significantly improved disability, and a substantial reduction in the use of opioids of which current use is considered a national crisis. While pain and disability improvement is comparable to similar studies, the reduction in opioid use (55%) was much greater than previously reported in other studies. Additional pain and fusion data from more patients and longer follow-up will continue to further delineate clinical and radiographic outcomes.

DISCLOSURE

This work was sponsored with institutional support by Zyga Technology, Inc. (Minnetonka, MN). AA, RW, KC, CB, and AT are investigators in the EVSI study which is sponsored by Zyga. RW, KC, CB, and AT have no financial conflict. LI is an employee of Zyga; AA and LCF are consultants to Zyga.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

This study was approved by the institutional review board of each participating hospital, or if one did not exist, by a central institutional review board, Western IRB.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as re vised in 2008. (https://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/10helsinki/)

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to enrollment.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Dr. Araghi is a paid consultant for Zyga. L. Ingham is an employee of Zyga and L. Fielding is a consultant to Zyga.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the participating EVoluSIon investigators and study coordinators.

REFERENCES

[1] Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, et al. Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: A multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res 2013; 7(1): 14.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14] [PMID: 24172188]
[2] Whang P, Cher D, Polly D, et al. Sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs. non-surgical management: Six-Month outcomes from a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/2006] [PMID: 25785242]
[3] Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, et al. Randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants vs nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: 12-month outcomes. Neurosurgery 2015; 77(5): 674-90.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000988] [PMID: 26291338]
[4] Heiney J, Capobianco R, Cher D. A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique. Int J Spine Surg 2015; 9: 40.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/2040] [PMID: 26273558]
[5] MenMuir B, Fielding LC. Revision of minimally invasive Ssacroiliac joint fixation: Technical considerations and case studies using decortication and threaded implant fixation. Int J Spine Surg 2017; 11: 8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/4008] [PMID: 28377866]
[6] Cross WW III, Delbridge A, Hales D, Fielding LC. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: 2-year radiographic and clinical outcomes with a principles-based SIJ fusion system in press 2017.
[7] Szadek KM, Van Der Wurff P, Van Tulder MW, Zuurmond WW, Perez RS. Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: A systematic review. J Pain 2009; 10(4): 354-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.09.014] [PMID: 19101212]
[8] Hansen HC, McKenzie-Brown AM, Cohen SP, Swicegood JR, Colson JD, Manchikanti L. Sacroiliac joint interventions: A systematic review. Pain Physician 2007; 10(1): 165-84.
[PMID: 17256029]
[9] Manchikanti L, Abdi S, Atluri S, et al. An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations. Pain Physician 2013; 16(2)(Suppl 2): S49-S283.
[PMID: 23615883]
[10] Beaubien B, Salib RM, Fielding LC, Block JE. SImmetry sacroiliac joint fusion system with sImmetry decorticator. Surgical Science 2015; 06(07): 282-91.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ss.2015.67042]
[11] Miller LE, Block JE. Minimally invasive arthrodesis for chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction using the SImmetry SI Joint Fusion system. Med Devices (Auckl) 2014; 7: 125-30.
[PMID: 24851059]
[12] Kube RA, Muir JM. Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: One Year clinical and radiographic results following minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery. Open Orthop J 2016; 10: 679-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001610010679] [PMID: 28144378]
[13] Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac Joint Fusion: 2-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective Multicenter Trial. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3013] [PMID: 27162715]
[14] Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, et al. Two-Year outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion vs. non-surgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg 2016; 10: 28.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14444/3028] [PMID: 27652199]
[15] Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Kovalsky DA, Lockstadt H. Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: A Prospective Study 2015.
[16] Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG. Two-Year Comparative outcomes of MIS Lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Part II: Radiographic Findings. Spine 2016; 41(Suppl. 8): S133-44.
[PMID: 26839992]
[17] Hurlbert RJ, Alexander D, Bailey S, et al. RHBMP-2 for posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion: A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial. Spine 2013; 38(25): 2139-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000007] [PMID: 24296479]
[18] Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987; 317(3): 141-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198707163170304] [PMID: 3600702]
[19] Kube RA, Ed. Sacro-Iliac Fusion Rates Using a Novel MIS System. 15th Annual meeting of the international society for the advancement of spine surgery 2015 April 15-17, 2015; San Diego, CA.
[20] Rudolf L, Capobianco R. Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants. Open Orthop J 2014; 8: 375-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001408010375] [PMID: 25352932]
[21] Cross WW III, Delbridge A, Hales D, Eds. Evaluation of radiographic fusion after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery. 17th Annual Conference 2017 April 12-14, 2017; Boca Raton, FL.

Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents




Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2019 Bentham Open