The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
Study Design: Literature review. Objectives: Systematic review of the existing literature to determine the safety of minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion through the determination of the rate of procedural and device-related intraoperative and postoperative complications. Methods: Al...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global Spine Journal 2019-12, Vol.9 (8), p.874-880 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 880 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 874 |
container_title | Global Spine Journal |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Shamrock, Alan Gregory Patel, Anand Alam, Milad Shamrock, Keith Hayden Al Maaieh, Motasem |
description | Study Design:
Literature review.
Objectives:
Systematic review of the existing literature to determine the safety of minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion through the determination of the rate of procedural and device-related intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Methods:
All original studies with reported complication rates were included for analysis. Complications were defined as procedural if secondary to the MI surgery and device related if caused by placement of the implant. Complication rates are reported using descriptive statistics. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Score (VAS) pain ratings and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
Results:
Fourteen studies of 720 patients (499 females/221 males) with a mean follow-up of 22 months were included. Ninety-nine patients (13.75%) underwent bilateral SI joint arthrodesis resulting in a total of 819 SI joints fused. There were 91 reported procedural-related complications (11.11%) with the most common adverse event being surgical wound infection/drainage (n = 17). Twenty-five adverse events were attributed to be secondary to placement of the implant (3.05%) with nerve root impingement (n = 13) being the most common. The revision rate was 2.56%. MI SI joint fusion reduced VAS scores from 82.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.34-85.51) to 29.03 (95% CI 25.05-33.01) and ODI scores from 57.44 (95% CI 54.73-60.14) to 29.42 (95% CI 20.62-38.21).
Conclusions:
MI SI joint fusion is a relatively safe procedure but is not without certain risks. Further work must be done to optimize the procedure’s complication profile. Possible areas of improvement include preoperative patient optimization, operative technique, and use of intraoperative real-time imaging. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/2192568218816981 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6882089</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2192568218816981</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2323469450</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-4863eb207047def16c858605f7a7fe165e90e296f9982fc01e6fed3a80b04cbc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMotmj3rmTAjZvRJDOTSTaCiI-KxYJ1HdL0pk2ZTmoyU-i_N6W1PsBsEpLvnntPDkJnBF8RUpbXlAhaME4J54QJTg5Qd3OVFkzgw_2Z0w7qhTDHcTFaZoQeo05GOBG8yLtoMJpB8qYMNOtk6J2xFSTOJEPwum1UDa4NycDWdqGqap3065UKdrWp0N7ZyiqdPDtbN8lDG6yrT9GRUVWA3m4_Qe8P96O7p_Tl9bF_d_uS6pzRJs05y2BMcYnzcgKGMM0LznBhSlUaIKwAgYEKZoTg1GhMgBmYZIrjMc71WGcn6Garu2zHC5hoqBuvKrn0cU6_lk5Z-fultjM5dSvJOKeYiyhwuRPw7qOF0MiFDRqqamtZ0oxmORN5gSN68Qedu9bX0V6kSIlJVggeKbyl4r-E4MHshyFYbuKSf-OKJec_TewLvsKJQLoFgprCd9d_BT8B4MSclg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2317013598</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SAGE Journals</source><creator>Shamrock, Alan Gregory ; Patel, Anand ; Alam, Milad ; Shamrock, Keith Hayden ; Al Maaieh, Motasem</creator><creatorcontrib>Shamrock, Alan Gregory ; Patel, Anand ; Alam, Milad ; Shamrock, Keith Hayden ; Al Maaieh, Motasem</creatorcontrib><description>Study Design:
Literature review.
Objectives:
Systematic review of the existing literature to determine the safety of minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion through the determination of the rate of procedural and device-related intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Methods:
All original studies with reported complication rates were included for analysis. Complications were defined as procedural if secondary to the MI surgery and device related if caused by placement of the implant. Complication rates are reported using descriptive statistics. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Score (VAS) pain ratings and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
Results:
Fourteen studies of 720 patients (499 females/221 males) with a mean follow-up of 22 months were included. Ninety-nine patients (13.75%) underwent bilateral SI joint arthrodesis resulting in a total of 819 SI joints fused. There were 91 reported procedural-related complications (11.11%) with the most common adverse event being surgical wound infection/drainage (n = 17). Twenty-five adverse events were attributed to be secondary to placement of the implant (3.05%) with nerve root impingement (n = 13) being the most common. The revision rate was 2.56%. MI SI joint fusion reduced VAS scores from 82.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.34-85.51) to 29.03 (95% CI 25.05-33.01) and ODI scores from 57.44 (95% CI 54.73-60.14) to 29.42 (95% CI 20.62-38.21).
Conclusions:
MI SI joint fusion is a relatively safe procedure but is not without certain risks. Further work must be done to optimize the procedure’s complication profile. Possible areas of improvement include preoperative patient optimization, operative technique, and use of intraoperative real-time imaging.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2192-5682</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2192-5690</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2192568218816981</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31819854</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Review ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Global Spine Journal, 2019-12, Vol.9 (8), p.874-880</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2019.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2019. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial – No Derivatives License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2019 2019 AO Spine, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-4863eb207047def16c858605f7a7fe165e90e296f9982fc01e6fed3a80b04cbc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-4863eb207047def16c858605f7a7fe165e90e296f9982fc01e6fed3a80b04cbc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882089/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882089/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,313,314,727,780,784,792,864,885,21966,27853,27922,27924,27925,44945,45333,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31819854$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shamrock, Alan Gregory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Anand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alam, Milad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shamrock, Keith Hayden</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al Maaieh, Motasem</creatorcontrib><title>The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion</title><title>Global Spine Journal</title><addtitle>Global Spine J</addtitle><description>Study Design:
Literature review.
Objectives:
Systematic review of the existing literature to determine the safety of minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion through the determination of the rate of procedural and device-related intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Methods:
All original studies with reported complication rates were included for analysis. Complications were defined as procedural if secondary to the MI surgery and device related if caused by placement of the implant. Complication rates are reported using descriptive statistics. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Score (VAS) pain ratings and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
Results:
Fourteen studies of 720 patients (499 females/221 males) with a mean follow-up of 22 months were included. Ninety-nine patients (13.75%) underwent bilateral SI joint arthrodesis resulting in a total of 819 SI joints fused. There were 91 reported procedural-related complications (11.11%) with the most common adverse event being surgical wound infection/drainage (n = 17). Twenty-five adverse events were attributed to be secondary to placement of the implant (3.05%) with nerve root impingement (n = 13) being the most common. The revision rate was 2.56%. MI SI joint fusion reduced VAS scores from 82.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.34-85.51) to 29.03 (95% CI 25.05-33.01) and ODI scores from 57.44 (95% CI 54.73-60.14) to 29.42 (95% CI 20.62-38.21).
Conclusions:
MI SI joint fusion is a relatively safe procedure but is not without certain risks. Further work must be done to optimize the procedure’s complication profile. Possible areas of improvement include preoperative patient optimization, operative technique, and use of intraoperative real-time imaging.</description><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>2192-5682</issn><issn>2192-5690</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtLAzEUhYMotmj3rmTAjZvRJDOTSTaCiI-KxYJ1HdL0pk2ZTmoyU-i_N6W1PsBsEpLvnntPDkJnBF8RUpbXlAhaME4J54QJTg5Qd3OVFkzgw_2Z0w7qhTDHcTFaZoQeo05GOBG8yLtoMJpB8qYMNOtk6J2xFSTOJEPwum1UDa4NycDWdqGqap3065UKdrWp0N7ZyiqdPDtbN8lDG6yrT9GRUVWA3m4_Qe8P96O7p_Tl9bF_d_uS6pzRJs05y2BMcYnzcgKGMM0LznBhSlUaIKwAgYEKZoTg1GhMgBmYZIrjMc71WGcn6Garu2zHC5hoqBuvKrn0cU6_lk5Z-fultjM5dSvJOKeYiyhwuRPw7qOF0MiFDRqqamtZ0oxmORN5gSN68Qedu9bX0V6kSIlJVggeKbyl4r-E4MHshyFYbuKSf-OKJec_TewLvsKJQLoFgprCd9d_BT8B4MSclg</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Shamrock, Alan Gregory</creator><creator>Patel, Anand</creator><creator>Alam, Milad</creator><creator>Shamrock, Keith Hayden</creator><creator>Al Maaieh, Motasem</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion</title><author>Shamrock, Alan Gregory ; Patel, Anand ; Alam, Milad ; Shamrock, Keith Hayden ; Al Maaieh, Motasem</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-4863eb207047def16c858605f7a7fe165e90e296f9982fc01e6fed3a80b04cbc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shamrock, Alan Gregory</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Anand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alam, Milad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shamrock, Keith Hayden</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al Maaieh, Motasem</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Global Spine Journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shamrock, Alan Gregory</au><au>Patel, Anand</au><au>Alam, Milad</au><au>Shamrock, Keith Hayden</au><au>Al Maaieh, Motasem</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion</atitle><jtitle>Global Spine Journal</jtitle><addtitle>Global Spine J</addtitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>874</spage><epage>880</epage><pages>874-880</pages><issn>2192-5682</issn><eissn>2192-5690</eissn><abstract>Study Design:
Literature review.
Objectives:
Systematic review of the existing literature to determine the safety of minimally invasive (MI) sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion through the determination of the rate of procedural and device-related intraoperative and postoperative complications.
Methods:
All original studies with reported complication rates were included for analysis. Complications were defined as procedural if secondary to the MI surgery and device related if caused by placement of the implant. Complication rates are reported using descriptive statistics. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Score (VAS) pain ratings and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
Results:
Fourteen studies of 720 patients (499 females/221 males) with a mean follow-up of 22 months were included. Ninety-nine patients (13.75%) underwent bilateral SI joint arthrodesis resulting in a total of 819 SI joints fused. There were 91 reported procedural-related complications (11.11%) with the most common adverse event being surgical wound infection/drainage (n = 17). Twenty-five adverse events were attributed to be secondary to placement of the implant (3.05%) with nerve root impingement (n = 13) being the most common. The revision rate was 2.56%. MI SI joint fusion reduced VAS scores from 82.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 79.34-85.51) to 29.03 (95% CI 25.05-33.01) and ODI scores from 57.44 (95% CI 54.73-60.14) to 29.42 (95% CI 20.62-38.21).
Conclusions:
MI SI joint fusion is a relatively safe procedure but is not without certain risks. Further work must be done to optimize the procedure’s complication profile. Possible areas of improvement include preoperative patient optimization, operative technique, and use of intraoperative real-time imaging.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>31819854</pmid><doi>10.1177/2192568218816981</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2192-5682 |
ispartof | Global Spine Journal, 2019-12, Vol.9 (8), p.874-880 |
issn | 2192-5682 2192-5690 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6882089 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; SAGE Journals |
subjects | Review Systematic review |
title | The Safety Profile of Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T08%3A25%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Safety%20Profile%20of%20Percutaneous%20Minimally%20Invasive%20Sacroiliac%20Joint%20Fusion&rft.jtitle=Global%20Spine%20Journal&rft.au=Shamrock,%20Alan%20Gregory&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=874&rft.epage=880&rft.pages=874-880&rft.issn=2192-5682&rft.eissn=2192-5690&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2192568218816981&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2323469450%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2317013598&rft_id=info:pmid/31819854&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2192568218816981&rfr_iscdi=true |