Patient-reported outcomes after minimally invasive sacro-iliac joint surgery: a cohort study based on the Swedish Spine Registry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.40817Keywords:
Orthopaedic surgery, Registry study, Sacroiliac joint fusion, Sacroiliac joint pain, SpineAbstract
Background and purpose: There is conflicting evidence regarding treatment outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for long-lasting severe sacroiliac joint pain. The primary aim of our cohort study was to investigate change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint surgery in daily practice in the Swedish Spine Registry. Secondary aims were to explore the proportion of patients reaching a patient acceptable symptom score (PASS) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for pain scores, physical function, and health-related quality of life outcomes; furthermore, to evaluate self-reported satisfaction, walking distance, and changes in proportions of patients on full sick leave/disability leave and report complications and reoperations.
Methods: Data from the Swedish Spine Registry was collected for patients with first-time sacroiliac joint fusion, aged 21 to 70 years, with PROMs available preoperatively, at 1 or 2 years after last surgery. PROMs included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain, and EQ-VAS, in addition to demographic variables. We calculated mean change from pre- to postoperative and the proportion of patients achieving MCID and PASS.
Results: 68 patients had available pre- and postoperative data, with a mean age of 45 years (range 25–70) and 59 (87%) were female. At follow-up the mean reduction was 2.3 NRS points (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6–2.9; P < 0.001) for LBP and 14.8 points (CI 10.6–18.9; P < 0.001) for ODI. EQ-VAS improved by 22 points (CI 15.4–30.3, P < 0.001) at follow-up. Approximately half of the patients achieved MCID and PASS for pain (MCID NRS LBP: 38/65 [59%] and PASS NRS LBP: 32/66 [49%]) and physical function (MCID ODI: 27/67 [40%] and PASS ODI: 24/67 [36%]). The odds for increasing the patient’s walking distance to over 1 km at follow-up were 3.5 (CI 1.8–7.0; P < 0.0001), and of getting off full sick leave or full disability leave was 0.57 (CI 0.4–0.8; P = 0.001). In the first 3 months after surgery 3 complications were reported, and in the follow-up period 2 reoperations.
Conclusion: We found moderate treatment outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion when applied in daily practice with moderate pain relief and small improvements in physical function.
Downloads
References
Chang E, Rains C, Ali R, Wines R C, Kahwati L C. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review. Spine J 2022; 22(8): 1240-53. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.01.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2022.01.005
Gartenberg A, Nessim A, Cho W. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Europ Spine J 2021; 30(10): 2936-43. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06927-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06927-9
Whang P, Cher D, Polly D, Frank C, Lockstadt H, Glaser J, 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. doi: 10.14444/2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/2006
Randers EM, Gerdhem P, Stuge B, Diarbakerli E, Nordsletten L, Rohrl SM, et al. The effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared to sham operation: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine 2024; 68(102438): 102438. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102438
Sturesson B, Kools D, Pflugmacher R, Gasbarrini A, Prestamburgo D, Dengler J. Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management. Eur Spine J 2017; 26(3): 708-19. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4599-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4599-9
Strömqvist B, Fritzell P, Hägg O, Jönsson B, Sandén B. SweSpine: the Swedish spine register: The 2012 report. Eur Spine J 2013; 22(4): 953-74. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2758-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2758-9
SweSpine. Annual Report 2023: SweSpine 25 years [PDF report]. Sweden: SweSpine; 2023 [updated 2023]. Available from: https://www.swespine.se/uploads/231108_årsrapport_swespine_english.pdf.
Fairbank J C T. Why are there different versions of the Oswestry Disability Index? J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20(1): 83-6. doi: 10.3171/2013.9.SPINE13344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.9.SPINE13344
Hägg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A. Simplifying outcome measurement: Evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27(11): 1213-22. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200206010-00014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200206010-00014
Joelson A, Nerelius F, Sigmundsson FG, Karlsson J. The minimal important change for the EQ VAS based on the SF-36 health transition item: observations from 25772 spine surgery procedures. Qual Life Res 2022; 31(12): 3459-66. doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03182-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03182-3
Farrar J T, Young J P Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth J L, Poole M R. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001; 94(2): 149-58. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9
Ogura Y, Ogura K, Kobayashi Y, Kitagawa T, Yonezawa Y, Takahashi Y, et al. Minimum clinically important difference of major patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2020; 196:105966. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.105966
Fairbank J C T, Pynsent P B. The Oswestry Disability index. Spine 2000; 25(22): 2940-52. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
Austevoll I M, Gjestad R, Grotle M, Solberg T, Brox J I, Hermansen E, et al. Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20(1): 31. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2386-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2386-y
Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin–Mola E, Awada H, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, et al. Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64(11): 1699-707. doi: 10.1002/acr.21747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21747
Shahi P, Shinn D, Singh N, Subramanian T, Song J, Dalal S, et al. ODI < 25 denotes patient acceptable symptom state after minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023; 48(3): 196-202. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004479
Christensen R, Ranstam J, Overgaard S, Wagner P. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals. Acta Orthop 2023; 94:243-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11656
Polly D W, Swofford J, Whang P G, Frank C J, Glaser J A, Limoni R P, 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. doi: 10.14444/3028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/3028
Dengler J, Kools D, Pflugmacher R, Gasbarrini A, Prestamburgo D, Gaetani P, et al. Randomized trial of sacroiliac joint arthrodesis compared with conservative management for chronic low back pain attributed to the sacroiliac joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101(5): 400-11. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00022
Patel V V, Sawyer E E, Mintken P E, Michener L A, Cofer C L, Lindley E M. Initial validation of a sacroiliac joint-specific disability questionnaire. Orthopedics 2023; 46(6): 1-351. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20230426-03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20230426-03
Stokes O M, Cole A A, Breakwell L M, Lloyd A J, Leonard C M, Grevitt M. Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery? Europ Spine J 2017; 26(3): 816-24. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4938-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4938-x
Beard D J, Campbell M K, Blazeby J M, Carr A J, Weijer C, Cuthbertson B H, et al. Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop. Health Technol Assess 2021; 25(53): 1-52. doi: 10.3310/hta25530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25530
Endler P, Ekman P, Hellström F, Möller H, Gerdhem P. Minor effect of loss to follow-up on outcome interpretation in the Swedish spine register. Eur Spine J 2020; 29(2): 213-20. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06181-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06181-0
Elkan P, Lagerbäck T, Möller H, Gerdhem P. Response rate does not affect patient-reported outcome after lumbar discectomy. Eur Spine J 2018; 27(7): 1538-46. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5541-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5541-0
Parai C, Hägg O, Willers C, Lind B, Brisby H. Characteristics and predicted outcome of patients lost to follow-up after degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2020; 29(12): 3063-73. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06528-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06528-y
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Engelke Marie Randers , Thomas Johan Kibsgård, Britt Stuge, Andreas Westberg, Freyr Gauti Sigmundsson, Anders Joelson, Paul Gerdhem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
