Biomechanical analysis of the number of implants for the immediate sacroiliac joint fixation.
Arthrodesis
Biomechanics
Minimally invasive surgery
Sacroiliac joint
Sacroiliac joint fixation
Sacroiliac joint fusion
Journal
Spine deformity
ISSN: 2212-1358
Titre abrégé: Spine Deform
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101603979
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
02
09
2020
accepted:
01
03
2021
pubmed:
24
3
2021
medline:
20
11
2021
entrez:
23
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The fusion of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is the last treatment option for chronic pain resulting from sacroiliitis. With the various implant systems available, there are different possible surgical strategies in terms of the type and number of implants and trajectories. The aim was to quantify the effect of the number of cylindrical threaded implants on SIJ stabilization. Six cadaveric pelvises were embedded in resin simulating a double-leg stance. Compression loads were applied to the sacral plate. The pelvises were tested non-instrumented and instrumented progressively with up to three cylindrical threaded implants (12-mm diameter, 60-mm length) with a posterior oblique trajectory. Vertical (VD) and angular (AD) displacements of the SIJ were measured locally using high-precision cameras and digital image correlation. Compared to the non-instrumented initial state, instrumentation with one implant significantly decreased the VD (- 24% ± 15%, p = 0.028), while the AD decreased on average by - 9% (± 15%; p = 0.345). When compared to the one-implant configuration, adding a second implant further statistically decreased VD (- 10% ± 7%, p = 0.046) and AD (- 19% ± 15, p = 0.046). Adding a third implant did not lead to additional stabilization for VD nor AD (p > 0.5). Compared to the non-instrumented initial state, the two-implant configuration reduces both vertical and angular displacements the most, while minimizing the number of implants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33755927
doi: 10.1007/s43390-021-00325-3
pii: 10.1007/s43390-021-00325-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1267-1273Subventions
Organisme : Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
ID : IRCPJ 346145-16
Informations de copyright
© 2021. Scoliosis Research Society.
Références
Cohen SP, Chen Y, Neufeld NJ (2013) Sacroiliac joint pain: a comprehensive review of epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment. Expert Rev Neurother 13:99–116. https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.12.148
doi: 10.1586/ern.12.148
pubmed: 23253394
Smith AG, Capobianco R, Cher D, Rudolf L, Sachs D, Gundanna M, Kleiner J, Mody MG, Shamie AN (2013) Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Innov Res 7:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1164-7-14
doi: 10.1186/1750-1164-7-14
pubmed: 24172188
pmcid: 3817574
Claus CF, Lytle E, Kaufmann A, Tong D, Bahoura M, Garmo L, Richards B, Soo TM, Houseman C (2019) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium versus cylindrical threaded implants: a comparison of patient-reported outcomes. World Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.09.150
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.09.150
pubmed: 31605853
Sachs D, Kovalsky D, Redmond A, Limoni R, Meyer SC, Harvey C, Kondrashov D (2016) Durable intermediate-to long-term outcomes after minimally invasive transiliac sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants. Med Devices (Auckland, NZ) 9:213–222. https://doi.org/10.2147/mder.s109276
doi: 10.2147/mder.s109276
Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, Frank CJ, Glaser JA, Limoni RP, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Sembrano JN, the ISG (2016) 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 10:28. https://doi.org/10.14444/3028
doi: 10.14444/3028
pubmed: 27652199
pmcid: 5027818
Cross WW, Delbridge A, Hales D, Fielding LC (2018) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: 2-year radiographic and clinical outcomes with a principles-based SIJ fusion system. Open Orthop J 12:7–16. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001812010007
doi: 10.2174/1874325001812010007
pubmed: 29430266
pmcid: 5791206
Rajpal S, Burneikiene S (2019) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with cylindrical threaded implants using intraoperative stereotactic navigation. World Neurosurg 122:e1588–e1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.116
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.11.116
pubmed: 30476656
Lindsey DP, Parrish R, Gundanna M, Leasure J, Yerby SA, Kondrashov D (2018) Biomechanics of unilateral and bilateral sacroiliac joint stabilization: laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 28:326–332. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.7.spine17499
doi: 10.3171/2017.7.spine17499
pubmed: 29303472
Lindsey DP, Kiapour A, Yerby SA, Goel VK (2015) Sacroiliac joint fusion minimally affects adjacent lumbar segment motion: a finite element study. Int J Spine Surg 9:64. https://doi.org/10.14444/2064
doi: 10.14444/2064
pubmed: 26767156
pmcid: 4710165
Joukar A, Chande RD, Carpenter RD, Lindsey DP, Erbulut DU, Yerby SA, Duhon B, Goel VK (2019) Effects on hip stress following sacroiliac joint fixation: a finite element study. JOR Spine 2:e1067. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1067
doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1067
pubmed: 31891117
pmcid: 6920688
Lindsey DP, Perez-Orribo L, Rodriguez-Martinez N, Reyes PM, Newcomb A, Cable A, Hickam G, Yerby SA, Crawford NR (2014) Evaluation of a minimally invasive procedure for sacroiliac joint fusion—an in vitro biomechanical analysis of initial and cycled properties. Med Devices (Auckland, NZ) 7:131–137. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S63499
doi: 10.2147/MDER.S63499
Soriano-Baron H, Lindsey DP, Rodriguez-Martinez N, Reyes PM, Newcomb A, Yerby SA, Crawford NR (2015) The effect of implant placement on sacroiliac joint range of motion: posterior versus transarticular. Spine 40:E525-530. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000839
doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000839
pubmed: 25705956
Shih YC, Beaubien BP, Chen Q, Sembrano JN (2018) Biomechanical evaluation of sacroiliac joint fixation with decortication. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.016
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.016
pubmed: 29481980
Jeong JH, Leasure JM, Park J (2018) Assessment of biomechanical changes after sacroiliac joint fusion by application of the 3-dimensional motion analysis technique. World Neurosurg 117:e538–e543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.072
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.072
pubmed: 29933084
Dubé-Cyr R, Aubin C, Villemure I, Bianco RJ, Godio-Raboutet Y, Arnoux PJ (2020) Biomechanical analysis of two insertion sites for the fixation of the sacroiliac joint via an oblique lateral approach. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 74:118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.02.010
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.02.010
Joukar A (2017) Gender specific sacroiliac joint biomechanics: a finite element study. The University of Toledo, Toledo
Lindsey DP, Kiapour A, Yerby SA, Goel VK (2018) Sacroiliac joint stability: finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length. World J Orthop 9:14–23. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14
pubmed: 29564210
pmcid: 5859196
Larson AN, Polly DW Jr, Ackerman SJ, Ledonio CG, Lonner BS, Shah SA, Emans JB, Richards BS 3rd (2016) What would be the annual cost savings if fewer screws were used in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treatment in the US? J Neurosurg Spine 24:116–123. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.4.spine131119
doi: 10.3171/2015.4.spine131119
pubmed: 26384134
Bruna-Rosso C, Arnoux PJ, Bianco RJ, Godio-Raboutet Y, Fradet L, Aubin CE (2016) Finite element analysis of sacroiliac joint fixation under compression loads. Int J Spine Surg 10:16. https://doi.org/10.14444/3016
doi: 10.14444/3016
pubmed: 27441174
pmcid: 4943166
Dall BE, Eden SV, Cho W, Karkenny A, Brooks DM, Hayward GM 2nd, Moldavsky M, Yandamuri S, Bucklen BS (2019) Biomechanical analysis of motion following sacroiliac joint fusion using lateral sacroiliac screws with or without lumbosacral instrumented fusion. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 68:182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.05.025
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.05.025
Klima S, Grunert R, Ondruschka B, Scholze M, Seidel T, Werner M, Hammer N (2018) Pelvic orthosis effects on posterior pelvis kinematics an in-vitro biomechanical study. Sci Rep 8:15980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34387-7
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34387-7
pubmed: 30374032
pmcid: 6206162
Hammer N, Scholze M, Kibsgard T, Klima S, Schleifenbaum S, Seidel T, Werner M, Grunert R (2019) Physiological in vitro sacroiliac joint motion: a study on three-dimensional posterior pelvic ring kinematics. J Anat 234:346–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12924
doi: 10.1111/joa.12924
pubmed: 30536830
Joukar A, Kiapour A, Elgafy H, Erbulut DU, Agarwal AK, Goel VK (2020) Biomechanics of the sacroiliac joint: surgical treatments. Int J Spine Surg 14:355–367. https://doi.org/10.14444/7047
doi: 10.14444/7047
pubmed: 32699758
pmcid: 7343255
Cher DJ, Reckling WC, Capobianco RA (2015) Implant survivorship analysis after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using the iFuse Implant System(®). Med Devices (Auckland, NZ) 8:485–492. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S94885
doi: 10.2147/MDER.S94885
Duhon BS, Bitan F, Lockstadt H, Kovalsky D, Cher D, Hillen T (2016) Triangular titanium implants for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: 2-year follow-up from a prospective multicenter trial. Int J Spine Surg 10:13. https://doi.org/10.14444/3013
doi: 10.14444/3013
pubmed: 27162715
pmcid: 4852595
Cher D, Polly D, Berven S (2014) Sacroiliac joint pain: burden of disease. Med Devices (Auckland, NZ) 7:73–81. https://doi.org/10.2147/mder.s59437
doi: 10.2147/mder.s59437
Crandall JR (1994) The preservation of human surrogates for biomechanical studies. PhD thesis, University of Virginia
van Haaren EH, van der Zwaard BC, van der Veen AJ, Heyligers IC, Wuisman PI, Smit TH (2008) Effect of long-term preservation on the mechanical properties of cortical bone in goats. Acta Orthop 79(5):708–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670810016759
doi: 10.1080/17453670810016759
pubmed: 18839380
Topp T, Müller T, Huss S, Kann PH, Weihe E, Ruchholtz S, Zettl RP (2012) Embalmed and fresh frozen human bones in orthopedic cadaveric studies: which bone is authentic and feasible? Acta Orthop 83(5):543–547. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.727079
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.727079
pubmed: 22978564
pmcid: 3488184