Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background context

Although pain is generally regarded as originating in the lumbar spine, it has been estimated that in 15–30 % of patients, LBP originates from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

Purpose

To determine whether sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) for LBP is effective in reducing pain when the SIJ is known to be the pain generator.

Study design/setting

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed of observational studies describing outcome of SIJF in patients with LBP. Outcome measures were VAS pain, ODI, SF-36 PCS/MCS and Majeed score. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Medline and Google scholar. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed using the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute case series quality assessment tool. Meta-analysis was used to combine the studies for each outcome and forest plots were prepared. Outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD).

Results

Six studies were included in the meta-analysis with a mean follow-up of 17.6 months. All outcomes showed statistical and clinical improvement (VAS pain MD: 54.8; 95 % CI 48.6, 61.0; n = 380; p < 0.001, ODI MD: 14.5; 95 % CI 8.4, 20.6; n = 102; p < 0.001, SF-36 PCS MD: -19.5; 95 % CI -24.7, -14.2; n = 140; p < 0.001, SF-36 MCS MD: −8.5; 95 % CI −12.9, −4.1; n = 198; p < 0.001 and Majeed score MD: −35.4; 95 % CI −48.5, −22.2; n = 140; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

SIJF appears to be a satisfactory procedure for alleviating pelvic girdle pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Bogduck M (1995) The sacroiliac joint in chronic low back pain. Spine 20:31–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vleeming A, Albert HB, Ostgaard HC et al (2008) European guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic girdle pain. Eur Spine J 17(6):794–819

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Schutz A, Grob D (2006) Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome. Acta Orthop Belg 72:296–308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kibsgard TJ, Roise O, Stug B (2014) Pelvic joint fusions in patients with severe pelvic girdle pain—a prospective single-subject research design study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sachs D, Capobianco R (2013) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: one year outcomes in 40 patients. Adv Orthop 2013:536128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Zaidi HA, Montoure AJ, Dickman CA (2015) Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurosurg Spine 23:59–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2009) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  8. Majeed SA (1989) Grading the outcome of pelvic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 71:304–306

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. RefWorks [computer program]. Version 2. http://www.refworks.com

  10. The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Quality assessment tool for case series studies. Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/case_series. Accessed Oct 2014

  11. RevMan [computer program]. Version 5.2.11, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, 2013

  12. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range and the size of the sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5(1):13–20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Headrick TC (2010) Statistical simulation: power method polynomials and other transformations. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, p 137

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duhon BS, Cher DJ, Wine KD et al (2013) Safety and 6-month effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study. Med Dev Evid Res 6:219–229

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mason LW, Chopra I (2013) The percutaneous stabilisation of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws: a prospective outcome study. Euro Spine J 22:2325–2331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rudolf L, Capobianco R (2014) Five year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants. Open Orthop J 8:375–383

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sachs D, Capobianco R, Cher D et al (2014) One year outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with a series of triangular implants: a multicenter patient level analysis. Med Dev Evid Res 7:299–304

    Google Scholar 

  18. Khurana A, Guha AR, Mohanty K et al (2009) Percutaneous fusion of the sacroiliac joint with hollow modular anchorage screws. J Bone Joint Surg 91:627–631

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ledonio CGT, Polly DW Jr, Swiontkowski MF (2014) Minimally invasive versus open sacroiliac joint fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1831–1838

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Stuber KJ (2007) Specificity, sensitivity and predictive values of clinical tests of the sacroiliac joint; a systematic review of the literature. J Can Chiropr Assoc 51(1):30–41

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Berthelot JM, Labat JJ, Le Goff B et al (2006) Provocative sacroiliac joint maneuvers and sacroiliac joint block are unreliable for diagnosing sacroiliac joint pain. Joint Bone Spine 73(1):7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tofuku K, Koga H, Komiya S (2015) The diagnostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography for severe joint dysfunction. Euro Spine J 24:859–863

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sembrano JN, Polly DW Jr (2009) How often is low back pain not coming form the back? Spine 34:E27–E32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maigne JY, Planchon CA (2005) Sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar fusion. A study with anesthetic blocks. Eur Spine J 14:654–658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wise CL, Dall BE (2008) Minimally invasive sacroiliac arthrodesis: outcomes of a new technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:579–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Slinkard N, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF (2013) Documenation of outcomes for sacroiliac joint fusion: does prior spinal fusion influence outcome? Eur Spine J 22:2318–2324

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kibsgard TJ, Roise O, Sudmann E (2013) Pelvic joint fusions in patients with chronic pelvic girdle pain: a 23-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:871–877

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cummings J Jr, Capobianco RA (2013) Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: one year outcomes in 18 patients. Ann Surg Innov Res 7:12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vianin M (2008) Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disabiity Index. J Chiropr Med 7:161–163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Welsh Centre for Spinal Trauma and Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, Wales, UK

    Kiran Kumar Lingutla, Raymond Pollock & Sashin Ahuja

Authors
  1. Kiran Kumar Lingutla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Pollock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sashin Ahuja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond Pollock.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lingutla, K.K., Pollock, R. & Ahuja, S. Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 25, 1924–1931 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4490-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4490-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation