Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Prospective cohort study.

Objective

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is an important cause of lower back pain. The degree to which minimally invasive surgical fusion of the SIJ improves health state utility has not been previously documented.

Methods

Health state utility values were calculated using the EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) at baseline and 6 and 12 months after SIJ fusion surgery in subjects participating in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial (n = 172). Values were compared with individuals who participated in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (National Health Measurement Study [NHMS], n = 3,844). Health utility values in the SIJ cohort were compared with those of the NMHS participants using both weighted linear regression and calculation of “health quantile” (i.e., percentile of health normalized to the NHMS cohort adjusted for age and gender).

Results

Baseline health state utility was significantly depressed in SIJ patients compared with normal subjects (SF-6D 0.509 versus 0.789, SF-36 physical component summary 31.7 versus 49.2, SF-36 mental component summary 8.5 versus 53.8, EQ-5D 0.433 versus 0.868; all p < 0.0001 after adjustment for age and gender). In the SIJ cohort, all the measures improved by 6 months postoperatively, and improvements were sustained at 12 months. Baseline health quantile was low (fifth percentile) in the SIJ cohort and improved significantly at follow-up.

Conclusions

Quality of life is markedly impaired in patients with SIJ pain compared with age- and gender-matched cohorts. SIJ fusion in this cohort resulted in a substantial improvement in health state utility, bringing the population back toward the expected levels of overall health. The quantile approach helps to explain the degree to which health is improved compared with age- and gender-matched cohorts.

Keywords

sacroiliac joint pain sacroiliac joint fusion burden of disease chronic lower back pain degenerative sacroiliitis sacroiliac joint disruptions

Introduction

The burden of chronic lower back pain in modern society is high, with an annual loss of ∼83 million healthy life-years.¹ Rating higher than cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lower back pain is the sixth most common cause of loss of global disability-adjusted life-years.²

Many patients who present with chronic lower back pain have sacroiliac joint (SIJ) disorders as a source of pain. In fact, the SIJ was determined to be the source of the lower back pain in 14 to 22% of patients presenting for back pain evaluation.³,⁴ The SIJ is even more commonly (up to 40%) suspected as a source of lower back pain in patients with prior lumbar fusion.⁵,⁶ Currently available treatment options include physical therapy,7 SIJ steroid injections,⁸,⁹ radiofrequency ablation of the SIJ,¹⁰,¹¹ and open or minimally invasive SIJ fusion.¹²,¹³,¹⁴,¹⁵,¹⁶,¹⁷,¹⁸

Clinical trials of orthopedic surgical interventions are challenging, especially when comparing surgical to nonsurgical treatments. Although orthopedic surgery trials typically focus on improvements in pain and disability, few have reported improvements in overall quality of life. Moreover, few have put observed improvements into perspective by comparison to other health conditions or age-matched cohorts. It is reasonable to expect that surgery could restore a portion of lost health in an older person; however, it is not reasonable to expect restoration to perfect health. Adjustment for the chronic health conditions of the target population could help to put observed improvements after any intervention into perspective. This report (1) compares depression of health state utility in a cohort of patients with SIJ disorders participating in a prospective clinical trial to age- and gender-matched cohorts, (2) documents the improvement in health state utility after surgery, and (3) proposes methods to put the restoration of health after surgery into perspective by direct comparison to a normal cohort matched for age and gender.

Methods

Cohorts

Methods used in this study were similar to those previously reported.¹⁹ Two cohorts were used. The SIJ cohort consisted of 172 patients enrolled in an ongoing, prospective, multicenter clinical trial of minimally invasive SIJ fusion (NCT01640353). The study was sponsored by the device manufacturer (SI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, California, United States). All clinical trial sites obtained Institutional Review Board approval prior to enrollment in this study. To qualify for the study, adult patients between ages 21 and 70 had to have carefully diagnosed chronic SIJ pain due to degenerative sacroiliitis or SIJ disruptions as outlined in Table 1. All eligible subjects underwent minimally invasive SIJ fusion as described below. All subjects completed the Short Form-36 (SF-36) v2 and EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D)'s health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) questionnaires at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after surgery.^20,21 Six-month follow-up was available in 163 SIJ subjects (95%). As the SIJ study is ongoing, 12-month follow-up is currently available in 63 (37%). The normal cohort consisted of respondents from the United States National Health Measurement Study (NHMS). Designed to compare commonly used preference-based HRQoL instruments (SF-36, SF-6D,²² EQ-5D,21 and other surveys) in an oversampled cross-sectional sample of 3,844 U.S. adults, the publicly available data has been analyzed for population norms.²³

Table 1

Key eligibility criteria for SIJ pain and participation in clinical trial of SIJ fusion^a

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
• Age 21–70 y at screening	• Severe residual back pain due to other causes
• Pain for at least 6 mo under the care of a physician at or close to the posterior superior iliac spine with possible radiation into the buttocks, posterior thigh, or groin rated as ≥50 on 0–100 visual analog scale	• Other sacroiliac pathology (e.g., tumor, fracture, inflammatory spondylitis)
• Positive Fortin finger test⁴⁰	• Recent (<1 y ago) major trauma
• At least 3 of 5 positive physical examination maneuvers that stress the SIJ⁴¹	• Diagnosed or suspected osteoporosis
• Improvement of at least 50% in pain after image-guided injection of 0.5 mL of contrast material and up to 1.5 mL of local anesthetic (lidocaine, bupivacaine, or ropivacaine) into the target joint; all blocks confirmed fluoroscopically by observation of contrast flowing into the target joint; patient-rated pain on a 0–10 numeric rating scale both immediately prior to diagnostic block and at 30 and 60 min after block	• Pregnancy
• Diagnosis of either degenerative sacroiliitis (based on a history or prior lumbar spine fusion or radiographic signs of degeneration in the SIJ) or SIJ disruption (based on radiographic widening of the target SIJ or leakage of contrast on diagnostic arthrogram)	• Known or suspected drug abuse
• Oswestry disability index score of at least 30%	• Uncontrolled psychiatric disease

Abbreviation: SIJ, sacroiliac joint.

See NCT01640353 on clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01640353) for details.

SIJ Fusion

The SIJ was fused during a minimally invasive surgical procedure under general anesthesia with fluoroscopic guidance. Briefly, the patient is placed in the prone position on a radiolucent table, a 3- to 5-cm lateral incision is made into the buttock region, and the gluteal fascia is bluntly dissected to reach the outer table of the ilium. A guide pin is passed through the ilium across the SIJ to the center of the sacrum lateral to the neural foramen. A drill is used, followed by a triangular broach, to create a pathway into the sacrum into which a titanium rod is impacted. Typically, three implants are placed at various locations across the SIJ. The incision is irrigated and the tissue layers sequentially closed. The implants and delivery system are manufactured by SI-BONE, Inc. Subjects requiring surgery on both SIJs could undergo either bilateral same-day surgery or staged surgery. Postoperatively, subjects underwent rehabilitative therapy for up to 6 weeks tailored to individual needs.

Transformations

Key measures in this study were the SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), SF-6D, and EQ-5D. The EQ-5D in the SIJ cohort was transformed into health state utility using EuroQOL tables, and the SF-6D was calculated using published formulae.²⁴,²⁵

Statistical Evaluation

All statistical evaluation was performed using R.²⁶ The NHMS and SIJ cohorts were combined with an additional grouping variable representing cohort (SIJ cohort or NHMS). Weighted means and other statistical measures were calculated across NHMS age and gender groups and gender using weighted approaches. Weighted regression, which controlled for age and gender and took into account oversampling at various strata in NHMA, was performed with the R “survey” package.²⁷ Hypotheses with p values less than 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

An alternative approach to estimating health impact was investigated by calculating each SIJ patient's percentile for a selected index using the NHMS cohort as a reference standard. That is, empirical cumulative distribution functions for each assessment of interest in NHMS (SF-6D, SF-36 PCS and MCS, and EQ-5D time trade-off index) were calculated by age group (by 10-year groupings) and gender, taking into account survey sampling weights. Weighted regression showed statistically significant differences in the reference population by gender and age groupings. Locally weighted smoothing for each empirical cumulative distribution function was determined, which allows estimation of the exact quantile of health given any input value for each age/gender subcohort. Then, for each SIJ subject, the corresponding quantile normalized to the NHMS reference population was determined at baseline and at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Any given percentile for an SIJ cohort participant indicates HRQoL with SIJ pain as compared with an age- and gender-matched reference standard. A value of 5% means that the quality of life for the SIJ patient is in the fifth percentile compared with age- and gender-matched peers.

Results

In all, 172 patients were enrolled in the SIJ surgery study and 3,844 people participated in the NHMS normal cohort. Compared with the NHMS normal cohort, the clinical trial subjects with diagnosed SIJ pain were somewhat younger and more likely to be women (Table 2). For each measure of interest (SF-36 PCS and MCS, SF-6D, and EQ-5D TTO [time trade-off index]), values in the SIJ cohort at baseline were substantially depressed compared with the NHMS cohort. After adjustment for differences in age and gender and accounting for oversampling, the differences were −18 and −15 points for the SF-36 PCS and MCS, respectively, and −0.28 and −0.43 points for the SF-6D and EQ-5D (Table 3, all p < 0.0001). At 6 and 12 months of follow-up, scores improved from baseline by ∼8 and 9 points for the SF-36 PCS and MCS, respectively, and by ∼0.12 and 0.25 points for the SF-6D and EQ-5D TTO, respectively (all p < 0.0001).

Table 2

Age and gender distributions by cohort

Characteristic	NHMS (n = 3,844)	SIJ (n = 198)	p Value
Age, mean (SE)	54.3 (0.35)	50.9 (0.86)	0.0002
Female (%)	2,203 (57.3%)	120 (69.8%)	<0.0001

Abbreviations: SE, standard error; SIJ, sacroiliac joint; NHMS, National Health Measurement Study.

Table 3

Mean (95% CI) HRQoL, decrement in quality of life, and improvement values by group

	Cohort
Measure	NHMS	SIJ	Decrement^a	p Value
SF-36 PCS
Baseline	49.2 (48.7–49.7)	31.7 (30.8–32.5)	−18.0	<0.0001
6 mo	–	40.1 (38.6–41.6)	+8.4 from BL	<0.0001
12 mo	–	38.8 (36.4–41.3)	+7.3 from BL	<0.0001
SF-36 MCS
Baseline	53.8 (53.4–54.2)	38.5 (36.8–40.2)	−15.0	<0.0001
6 mo	–	47.7 (45.9–49.4)	+9.1 from BL	<0.0001
12 mo	–	47.7 (44.5–50.8)	+9.1 from BL	<0.0001
SF-6D
Baseline	0.789 (0.782–0.796)	0.509 (0.497–0.520)	−0.281	<0.0001
6 mo	–	0.633 (0.614–0.653)	+0.125 from BL	<0.0001
12 mo	–	0.625 (0.592–0.657)	+0.117 from BL	<0.0001
EQ-5D TTO
Baseline	0.868 (0.861–0.876)	0.433 (0.406–0.460)	−0.436	<0.0001
6 mo	–	0.687 (0.655–0.719)	+0.254 from BL	<0.0001
12 mo	–	0.682 (0.638–0.726)	+0.250 from BL	<0.0001

Abbreviations: BL, baseline; CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D TTO, EuroQOL-5D time trade-off index; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; MCS, mental component summary; NHMS, National Health Measurement Study; PCS, physical component summary; SF-36, Short Form-36; SIJ, sacroiliac joint.

Note: Models control for age, gender, and age × gender interaction and oversampling in the reference group.

Age- and gender-adjusted diminution of value associated with membership in the SIJ cohort; subsequent values show age- and gender-adjusted change from BL in the SIJ cohort.

To put both baseline decrements and subsequent follow-up improvements into perspective, Figs. 1,2 to 3 show the distribution of raw utility values in the SIJ cohort compared with the NHMS normal cohort as well as age- and gender-adjusted quantile of health when compared with the NHMS reference standard. Table 4 shows summaries of the distribution of health quantile. At baseline, the mean quantile of health utility in the SIJ cohort was very low, and the distribution of utilities was concentrated in the lowest “decade.” These results suggest a marked depression of health in the SIJ cohort compared with unselected age- and gender-matched peers. At 6 and 12 months of follow-up, substantial improvement in health state utility was seen for both raw values as well as the distribution of health quantiles. For the SF-36 PCS, SF-6D, and EQ-5D, health quantiles improved from approximately the 5th percentile to the 20th to 25th percentiles. If the SIJ population were restored to health equivalent to that of the reference standard, then the distribution of quantiles would be flat across the quantile spectrum. Flattening of the quantile distribution is evident in each utility measurement. Quantile of health as assessed by the EQ-5D and SF-6D were moderately correlated (Pearson R = 0.78).

Table 4

Quantile of health in SIJ cohort by study visit and gender

		Quantile PCS					Quantile MCS					Quantile SF-6D					Quantile EQ-5D TTO
Visit	Sex	n	Mean	P25	P50	P75	n	Mean	P25	P50	P75	n	Mean	P25	P50	P75	n	Mean	P25	P50	P75
Baseline	Male	51	0.06	0.03	0.05	0.08	51	0.11	0.02	0.05	0.11	50	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.05	52	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.05
	Female	118	0.09	0.03	0.06	0.13	116	0.17	0.04	0.08	0.19	117	0.05	0.02	0.04	0.07	117	0.04	0.01	0.03	0.05
6 mo	Male	48	0.21	0.05	0.10	0.29	47	0.30	0.05	0.17	0.54	47	0.19	0.04	0.08	0.28	50	0.23	0.02	0.06	0.36
	Female	115	0.24	0.09	0.16	0.32	115	0.37	0.11	0.24	0.61	114	0.21	0.07	0.12	0.31	117	0.25	0.07	0.11	0.29
12 mo	Male	19	0.20	0.06	0.12	0.25	18	0.28	0.06	0.24	0.36	19	0.18	0.05	0.10	0.24	24	0.23	0.05	0.12	0.33
	Female	44	0.21	0.08	0.16	0.29	44	0.38	0.07	0.24	0.82	44	0.20	0.05	0.09	0.30	61	0.23	0.05	0.10	0.35

Abbreviations: EQ-5D TTO, EuroQOL-5D time trade-off index; MCS, mental component summary; P25, 25th percentile of the distribution of quantile; P50, 50th percentile of the distribution of quantile; P75; 75th percentile of the distribution of quantile; PCS, physical component summary; SD, standard deviation; SEM, standard error of the mean; SIJ, sacroiliac joint.

Note: $SEM=SD \times \sqrt{1 - r}$ and minimum detectable $change= 1.96 \times \sqrt 2 \times SEM$ .

Fig. 1

(A) Distribution of SF-6D in NHMS (reference cohort, blue) and SIJ subjects at baseline (gray) and 6 months of follow-up (green). Twelve-month results are nearly superimposable with 6-month results and are not plotted. (B) “Violin plot” distribution of SF-6D by study visit in SIJ cohort only expressed as quantiles using NHMS as a reference standard and adjusting for age and gender. The width of the violin is proportion to the point density. Abbreviations: SIFI, sacroiliac fusion investigation; SIJ, sacroiliac joint; NHMS, National Health Measurement Study.

Fig. 2

Distribution of SF-36 PCS (A) and MCS (B) in reference group (blue) and SIJ study subjects by study visit (baseline = gray, 6-month follow-up = green). (In the SIJ cohort, the 12-month results are nearly identical to 6-month results and are therefore not shown.) Quantiles of PCS (C) and MCS (D) in SIJ cohort by study visit when normalized to NHMS reference group by age and gender. Abbreviations: PCS, physical component summary; MCS, mental component summary; SF-36, Short Form-36; SIFI, sacroiliac fusion investigation; NHMS, National Health Measurement Study.

Fig. 3

(A) Distribution of EQ-5D time trade-off utility (top) in reference group (blue) and SIJ study subjects by study visit (baseline = gray, month 6 = green). Twelve-month SIJ cohort values, which were nearly identical to 6-month results, are hidden. (B) Quantiles of EQ-5D TTO in SIJ cohort by study visit when normalized to NHMS reference group by age and gender. The bimodal distribution for EQ-5D TTO in normal subjects is typical. Abbreviations: EQ-5D TTO, EuroQOL-5D time trade-off index; SIFI, sacroiliac fusion investigation; NHMS, National Health Measurement Study.

Discussion

This study extends the findings of a previous report of the same cohort that patients with SIJ disorders severe enough to consider surgery have very poor health state utility values.¹⁹ The prior report compared the disutility associated with SIJ pain to other medical conditions as well as to orthopedic conditions commonly treated surgically. The disutility associated with SIJ pain was equivalent to or worse than that from hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

We report herein that patients participating in a prospective trial, all of whom underwent minimally invasive SIJ fusion, saw substantial improvements in health state utility, with increases of 0.12 for the SF-6D and 0.25 points for the EQ-5D. The SF-6D changes are similar to 1-year changes reported in a registry study of lumbar diskectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis.²⁸

More commonly reported are changes in the SF-36 PCS after a surgical intervention. In our cohort, these measures improved by 7 to 9 points. These changes are similar to those seen in the INTER FIX investigational device exemption clinical trial,²⁹ which had a fusion control group (31 at baseline to 40 at 5 years) in a prospective randomized control study of total disk replacement versus single-level circumferential arthrodesis for single-level degenerative disease, as well as other randomized trials (e.g., a Canadian study of decompression with or without fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and a European randomized trial of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using autograft with or without platelet-rich plasma).³⁰,³¹,³² The changes seen in the SIJ cohort are somewhat larger than those reported in a prospective study specifically used to look at minimally clinically important differences in measures such as PCS.³³ The changes are also very similar to those seen in patients in multiple clinical trials who underwent total knee arthroplasty and just slightly smaller than those undergoing hip arthroplasty.³⁴ The improvement of PCS in the SIJ cohort was above the minimum detectable change as reviewed by Copay and exceeds one-half the standard deviation of the mean,³³ a value shown to generally represent the minimally important difference.³⁵ The observed improvement in the EQ-5D TTO health index in our cohort (0.25 units) was similar to that observed in patients undergoing a variety of orthopedic surgical procedures.³⁶ Though not the focus of the current report, improvements in HRQoL measures were paralleled by improvements in SIJ-specific pain and disability. Taken together, these results confirm those from several prior cohort and comparative studies including a 5-year follow-up study demonstrating the value of minimally invasive SIJ fusion.¹³,¹⁴,¹⁵,¹⁶,¹⁷,¹⁸,³⁷,³⁸,³⁹

Although improvements in pain are easy to interpret, improvements in quality of life and utility estimates are harder to put into perspective. Most HRQoL studies use the 0 to 1 scale, where 0 represents death and 1 represents perfect health. When considering the risk associated with treatments, there is an implicit presumption that treatment should restore as many patients as possible back to 1 (i.e., perfect health). With increasing longevity, however, patients are affected by an increasing number of chronic health conditions and achieving perfect health is therefore not a realistic goal.

In the SIJ cohort studied, the presurgical health level averaged in the third to fifth percentiles using the SF-6D and EQ-5D TTO index, and the sixth to ninth percentile for the SF-36 PCS. These values indicate severe baseline disability. At 6 and 12 months, the mean quantile had increased to the 20th to 25th percentile for all measures, indicating a substantial restoration of overall health with a single surgical procedure. A substantial number of patients were restored to health levels above the 50th percentile. Thus, although postintervention health states were still impaired in many patients, significant improvements should be acknowledged. The concept of improvement toward the age- and sex-matched health state gives a new perspective to the value of the intervention.

Extending these findings further, we believe that the value of any health intervention should be interpreted in light of both the preintervention health utility value as well as reasonable expectations for health given the population's age and gender distribution. Some interventions are aimed at populations whose overall health state utility is not severely depressed. These interventions may have limited ability to improve overall health. In contrast, as evidenced by the baseline quantile values in the SIJ cohort, SIJ pain was associated with severely impaired overall health. The improvement in health seen after SIJ fusion potentially translates into a larger overall public health impact given the marked depression of the baseline health. For example, an improvement from the 3rd percentile of health to the 20th to 25th percentile represents an increase of 1 to 1.2 standard deviations. In contrast, a similar improvement of 17 to 22 quantile points when starting at the median level of health constitutes a change of less than half a standard deviation.

Using this approach, the threshold for what constitutes a meaningful improvement might be different in the groups with varying degrees of diminution of presurgery health. Further exploration of the value of the approach described herein is warranted. Of special interest is whether the cost-effectiveness calculations could or should be affected by comparison to age- and gender-matched normal cohorts.

The improvements in health state utility were somewhat different across the two utility measures: +0.12 and +0.25 points on the SF-6D and EQ-5D TTO indices, respectively. The EQ-5D utility measure showed more depression at baseline than the SF-6D (0.43 versus 0.51 points) as well as greater improvement (+0.25 versus +0.12 points). The EQ-5D TTO also demonstrated a ceiling affect. Possibly because it has fewer response categories (three per question) and fewer questions (five) than the SF-36, the EQ-5D may have less resolution than the SF-6D. Interestingly, the two values were moderately correlated and the baseline and postsurgery quantile measurements associated with these two measures agreed closely, suggesting that both instruments measure a valid aspect of overall health state utility.

This study has several strengths. First, we compared a relatively large number of patients from a carefully selected and homogeneous population (i.e., participants in a prospective multicenter clinical trial) to an unselected age- and gender-matched cohort from a nationally representative health survey. The same questionnaires used to assess HRQoL at baseline were repeated at predetermined follow-up intervals, allowing an accurate assessment of response to the intervention. Finally, the large number of subjects in the reference population allowed precise estimation of health quantiles by gender and age categories. A potential limitation is that because the reference standard focused on individuals of all ages who were able to participate in surveys, it may overestimate health in normal people by excluding persons with poor health who could not participate.

Conclusions

SIJ pain due to degenerative sacroiliitis and SIJ disruptions was associated with marked decreases in quality of life and health state utility, corresponding to the third to fifth percentiles of health compared with free-living age- and gender-matched individuals. SIJ fusion in this cohort resulted in a substantial improvement in health state utility, bringing the population back toward expected levels of overall health.

Disclosures

Daniel J. Cher, employee: SI-BONE

David W. Polly, none

Financial Support

The study from which data analyzed in this report is derived was sponsored by SI-BONE.

References

Murray

C JL

Vos

Lozano

, et al.

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Lancet 2012 380 9859 2197–2223

Salomon

J A

Vos

Hogan

D R

, et al.

Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Lancet 2012 380 9859 2129–2143

Bernard

T N

Kirkaldy-Willis

W H

Recognizing specific characteristics of nonspecific low back pain

Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987 217 266–280

Sembrano

J N

Polly

D W

How often is low back pain not coming from the back?

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009 34 1 E27–E32

Liliang

P-C

Liang

C L

Tsai

Y D

Wang

K W

Chen

H J

Sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar and lumbosacral fusion: findings using dual sacroiliac joint blocks

Pain Med 2011 12 4 565–570

DePalma

M J

Ketchum

J M

Saullo

T R

Etiology of chronic low back pain in patients having undergone lumbar fusion

Pain Med 2011 12 5 732–739

American Physical Therapy Association, Orthopaedic Section

Current Concepts of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. 3rd ed

LaCrosse, WI

Orthopaedic Section, APTA

2011

Luukkainen

Nissilä

Asikainen

, et al.

Periarticular corticosteroid treatment of the sacroiliac joint in patients with seronegative spondylarthropathy

Clin Exp Rheumatol 1999 17 1 88–90

Luukkainen

R K

Wennerstrand

P V

Kautiainen

H H

Sanila

M T

Asikainen

E L

Efficacy of periarticular corticosteroid treatment of the sacroiliac joint in non-spondylarthropathic patients with chronic low back pain in the region of the sacroiliac joint

Clin Exp Rheumatol 2002 20 1 52–54

10.

Cohen

S P

Hurley

R W

Buckenmaier

C C

III

Kurihara

Morlando

Dragovich

Randomized placebo-controlled study evaluating lateral branch radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac joint pain

Anesthesiology 2008 109 2 279–288

11.

Patel

Gross

Brown

Gekht

A randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of lateral branch neurotomy for chronic sacroiliac joint pain

Pain Med 2012 13 3 383–398

12.

Buchowski

J M

Kebaish

K M

Sinkov

Cohen

D B

Sieber

A N

Kostuik

J P

Functional and radiographic outcome of sacroiliac arthrodesis for the disorders of the sacroiliac joint

Spine J 2005 5 5 520–528 , discussion 529

13.

Rudolf

Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis-MIS technique with titanium implants: report of the first 50 patients and outcomes

Open Orthop J 2012 6 495–502

14.

Sachs

Capobianco

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: one-year outcomes in 40 patients

Adv Orthop 2013 2013 536128

15.

Cummings

Capobianco

R A

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: one-year outcomes in 18 patients

Ann Surg Innov Res 2013 7 1 12

16.

Gaetani

Miotti

Risso

, et al.

Percutaneous arthrodesis of sacro-iliac joint: a pilot study

J Neurosurg Sci 2013 57 4 297–301

17.

Duhon

B S

Cher

D J

Wine

K D

Lockstadt

Kovalsky

Soo

C L

Safety and 6-month effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a prospective study

Med Devices (Auckl) 2013 6 219–229

18.

Schroeder

J E

Cunningham

M E

Ross

Boachie-Adjei

Early results of sacro-iliac joint fixation following long fusion to the sacrum in adult spine deformity

HSS J 2014 10 1 30–35

19.

Cher

Polly

Berven

Sacroiliac joint pain: burden of disease

Med Devices (Auckl) 2014 7 73–81

20.

Ware

J E

Kosinski

Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response

Qual Life Res 2001 10 5 405–413 , discussion 415–420

21.

Brooks

Rabin

de Charo

, eds.

The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective: Evidence from the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme

Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Springer

2003

22.

Brazier

Roberts

Deverill

The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36

J Health Econ 2002 21 2 271–292

23.

Fryback

D G

Dunham

N C

Palta

, et al.

US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study

Med Care 2007 45 12 1162–1170

24.

Calculating the U.S. Population-based EQ-5D Index Score

Available at: http://archive.ahrq.gov/professionals/clinicians-providers/resources/rice/EQ5Dscore.html

25.

Hays

SF-36 to SF-6D Conversion Utility; 2002

Available at: http://gim.med.ucla.edu/FacultyPages/Hays/utils/ . Accessed October 1, 2013

26.

R Core Team (2014)

R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ . Accessed October 1, 2013

27.

Lumley

Analysis of complex survey samples

J Stat Softw 2004 9 1–19

28.

Mummaneni

P V

Whitmore

R G

Curran

J N

, et al.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: experience with the NeuroPoint-SD registry

Neurosurg Focus 2014 36 6 E3

29.

Food and Drug Administration. Summary of safety and effectiveness

INTER FIX Threaded Fusion Device; 1997. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf/p970015b.pdf . Accessed October 1, 2014

30.

Zigler

J E

Delamarter

R B

Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease

J Neurosurg Spine 2012 17 6 493–501

31.

Rampersaud

Y R

Fisher

Yee

, et al.

Health-related quality of life following decompression compared to decompression and fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a Canadian multicentre study

Can J Surg 2014 57 4 E126–E133

32.

Sys

Weyler

Van Der Zijden

Parizel

Michielsen

Platelet-rich plasma in mono-segmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Eur Spine J 2011 20 10 1650–1657

33.

Copay

A G

Glassman

S D

Subach

B R

Berven

Schuler

T C

Carreon

L Y

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 2008 8 6 968–974

34.

Polly

D W

Glassman

S D

Schwender

J D

, et al; Lumbar Spine Study Group.

SF-36 PCS benefit-cost ratio of lumbar fusion comparison to other surgical interventions: a thought experiment

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32 (11, Suppl): S20–S26

35.

Norman

G R

Sloan

J A

Wyrwich

K W

Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation

Med Care 2003 41 5 582–592

36.

Hansson

Malchau

Utility of spine surgery: a comparison of common elective orthopaedic surgical procedures

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 33 25 2819–2830

37.

Smith

A G

Capobianco

Cher

, et al.

Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes

Ann Surg Innov Res 2013 7 1 14

38.

Ledonio

C GT

Polly

D W

Swiontkowski

M F

Minimally invasive versus open sacroiliac joint fusion: are they similarly safe and effective?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014 472 6 1831–1838

39.

Rudolf

Capobianco

Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants

Open Orthop J 2014 8 375–383

40.

Fortin

J D

Falco

F J

The Fortin finger test: an indicator of sacroiliac pain

Am J Orthop 1997 26 7 477–480

41.

Szadek

K M

van der Wurff

van Tulder

M W

Zuurmond

W W

Perez

RSGM

Diagnostic validity of criteria for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review

J Pain 2009 10 4 354–368

Improvement in Health State Utility after Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Comparison to Normal Populations

Abstract

Study Design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Cohorts

SIJ Fusion

Transformations

Statistical Evaluation

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Disclosures Daniel J. Cher, employee: SI-BONE David W. Polly, none Financial Support The study from which data analyzed in this report is derived was sponsored by SI-BONE.

Disclosures

Financial Support

References

Disclosures

Daniel J. Cher, employee: SI-BONE

David W. Polly, none

Financial Support

The study from which data analyzed in this report is derived was sponsored by SI-BONE.