Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion

Charles GT Ledonio,1 David W Polly Jr,1 Marc F Swiontkowski,1 John T Cummings Jr2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, 2Community Neurosurgical Care, Indianapolis, IN, USA Background: The mainstay of sacroiliac joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis the...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ledonio CGT, Polly Jr DW, Swiontkowski MF, Cummings Jr JT
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2014
Materias:	Medical technology R855-855.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/4b4e0b43f13341ca86cbf7d52cbb3f32
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:4b4e0b43f13341ca86cbf7d52cbb3f32
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:4b4e0b43f13341ca86cbf7d52cbb3f322021-12-02T02:31:42ZComparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion1179-1470https://doaj.org/article/4b4e0b43f13341ca86cbf7d52cbb3f322014-06-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/comparative-effectiveness-of-open-versus-minimally-invasive-sacroiliac-a17121https://doaj.org/toc/1179-1470 Charles GT Ledonio,1 David W Polly Jr,1 Marc F Swiontkowski,1 John T Cummings Jr2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, 2Community Neurosurgical Care, Indianapolis, IN, USA Background: The mainstay of sacroiliac joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis therapy has been nonoperative management. This nonoperative management often includes a regimen of physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, therapeutic injections, and possibly radiofrequency ablation at the discretion of the treating physician. When these clinical treatments fail, sacroiliac joint fusion has been recommended as the standard treatment. Open and minimally invasive (MIS) surgical techniques are typical procedures. This study aims to compare the perioperative measures and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) outcomes associated with each of these techniques. Methods: A comparative retrospective chart review of patients with sacroiliac joint fusion and a minimum of 1 year of follow-up was performed. Perioperative measures and ODI scores were compared using the Fisher's exact test and two nonparametric tests, ie, the Mann–Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results are presented as percent or median with range, as appropriate. Results: Forty-nine patients from two institutions underwent sacroiliac joint fusion between 2006 and 2012. Ten patients were excluded because of incomplete data, leaving 39 evaluable patients, of whom 22 underwent open and 17 underwent MIS sacroiliac joint fusion. The MIS group was significantly older (median age 66 [39–82] years) than the open group (median age 51 [34–74] years). Surgical time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIS group than in the open group. Preoperative ODI was significantly greater in the open group (median 64 [44–78]) than in the MIS group (median 53 [14–84]). Postoperative improvement in ODI was statistically significant within and between groups, with MIS resulting in greater improvement. Conclusion: The open and MIS sacroiliac joint fusion techniques resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvement for patients with degenerative sacroiliitis refractory to nonoperative management. However, the number of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference and those showing overall improvement were greater in the MIS group. Keywords: sacroiliac joint, arthrodesis, sacroiliac joint disruption, degenerative sacroiliitisLedonio CGTPolly Jr DWSwiontkowski MFCummings Jr JTDove Medical PressarticleMedical technologyR855-855.5ENMedical Devices: Evidence and Research, Vol 2014, Iss default, Pp 187-193 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medical technology R855-855.5
spellingShingle	Medical technology R855-855.5 Ledonio CGT Polly Jr DW Swiontkowski MF Cummings Jr JT Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
description	Charles GT Ledonio,1 David W Polly Jr,1 Marc F Swiontkowski,1 John T Cummings Jr2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, 2Community Neurosurgical Care, Indianapolis, IN, USA Background: The mainstay of sacroiliac joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis therapy has been nonoperative management. This nonoperative management often includes a regimen of physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, therapeutic injections, and possibly radiofrequency ablation at the discretion of the treating physician. When these clinical treatments fail, sacroiliac joint fusion has been recommended as the standard treatment. Open and minimally invasive (MIS) surgical techniques are typical procedures. This study aims to compare the perioperative measures and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) outcomes associated with each of these techniques. Methods: A comparative retrospective chart review of patients with sacroiliac joint fusion and a minimum of 1 year of follow-up was performed. Perioperative measures and ODI scores were compared using the Fisher's exact test and two nonparametric tests, ie, the Mann–Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results are presented as percent or median with range, as appropriate. Results: Forty-nine patients from two institutions underwent sacroiliac joint fusion between 2006 and 2012. Ten patients were excluded because of incomplete data, leaving 39 evaluable patients, of whom 22 underwent open and 17 underwent MIS sacroiliac joint fusion. The MIS group was significantly older (median age 66 [39–82] years) than the open group (median age 51 [34–74] years). Surgical time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIS group than in the open group. Preoperative ODI was significantly greater in the open group (median 64 [44–78]) than in the MIS group (median 53 [14–84]). Postoperative improvement in ODI was statistically significant within and between groups, with MIS resulting in greater improvement. Conclusion: The open and MIS sacroiliac joint fusion techniques resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvement for patients with degenerative sacroiliitis refractory to nonoperative management. However, the number of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference and those showing overall improvement were greater in the MIS group. Keywords: sacroiliac joint, arthrodesis, sacroiliac joint disruption, degenerative sacroiliitis
format	article
author	Ledonio CGT Polly Jr DW Swiontkowski MF Cummings Jr JT
author_facet	Ledonio CGT Polly Jr DW Swiontkowski MF Cummings Jr JT
author_sort	Ledonio CGT
title	Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
title_short	Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
title_full	Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
title_fullStr	Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
title_full_unstemmed	Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
title_sort	comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/4b4e0b43f13341ca86cbf7d52cbb3f32
work_keys_str_mv	AT ledoniocgt comparativeeffectivenessofopenversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusion AT pollyjrdw comparativeeffectivenessofopenversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusion AT swiontkowskimf comparativeeffectivenessofopenversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusion AT cummingsjrjt comparativeeffectivenessofopenversusminimallyinvasivesacroiliacjointfusion
_version_	1718402406004293632

Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion

Ejemplares similares