Propensity-matched Analysis of 1062 Patients Following Minimally Invasive Versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion

Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the hospital charges and postoperative complications of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open approaches to sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion. Summary of Background Data: The data source utilized in this study is the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Readmission Database (NRD) from 2016 and 2017. The NRD is a yearly nationally representative inpatient database from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality with information regarding patient demographics, diagnoses, procedures, and readmissions. Materials and Methods: The 2016−2017 NRD was used to identify 2521 patients receiving SIJ fusion with open (n=1990) or MIS approaches (n=531) for diagnosed sacrum pain, sacroiliitis, sacral instability, or spondylosis after excluding for those who received prior SIJ fusion, those diagnosed with neoplasms or trauma of the pelvis or sacrum, and nonelective procedures. We then one-to-one propensity-matched the open (n=531) to the MIS approach (n=531) for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Statistical analysis was performed to compare total hospital charges, immediate surgical complications, nonelective readmission rate, and 30-, 90-, and 180-day postoperative complications between the 2 approaches. Results: The mean total hospital charge was the only significant difference between 2 group. Open SIJ fusion had significantly higher charge compared with the MIS approach (open $101,061.90±$81,136.67; MIS $83,594.78±$49,086.00, P<0.0001). The open approach was associated with nonsignificant higher rates of novel lumbar pathology at 30-, 90-, and 180-day readmissions and revision surgeries at 30 and 180 days. MIS approach had higher rates nervous system complications at 30-, 90-, and 180-day readmission, as well as infection and urinary tract infection within 30 days, none being significant. Novel postprocedural pain was similar between the 2 groups at 90 and 180 days. Conclusions: The current study found that open SIJ fusion was associated with significantly higher hospital charges. Although no significant differences in postoperative complications were found, there were several notable trends specific to each surgical approach.

[1]  Kevin Crosby,et al.  Copyright 2021 , 2021, 2021 25th International Computer Science and Engineering Conference (ICSEC).

[2]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery , 2020, Global spine journal.

[3]  R. Lafage,et al.  Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques? , 2019, Global spine journal.

[4]  D. Polly,et al.  Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Approaches and Recent Outcomes , 2019, PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation.

[5]  D. Cher,et al.  Randomized Trial of Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis Compared with Conservative Management for Chronic Low Back Pain Attributed to the Sacroiliac Joint , 2019, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  P. Passias,et al.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: An Analysis of Opioids, Nonopioid Analgesics, and Perioperative Characteristics , 2019, Global Spine Journal.

[7]  A. Gasbarrini,et al.  Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[8]  S. McClelland,et al.  Minimally Invasive versus Open Spine Surgery: What Does the Best Evidence Tell Us? , 2016, Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice.

[9]  D. Cher,et al.  Two-Year Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs. Non-Surgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction , 2016, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[10]  Kyle Schoell,et al.  Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion , 2016, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[11]  D. Cher,et al.  A systematic review of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion utilizing a lateral transarticular technique , 2015, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[12]  C. Dickman,et al.  Surgical and clinical efficacy of sacroiliac joint fusion: a systematic review of the literature. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[13]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion , 2014, Medical devices.

[14]  D. Polly,et al.  Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology , 2014, ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR.

[15]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Are They Similarly Safe and Effective? , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  G. Andersson,et al.  Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approach for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion in Surgeon Population of ISASS and SMISS Membership , 2014, The open orthopaedics journal.

[17]  D. Cher,et al.  Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes , 2013, Annals of surgical innovation and research.

[18]  Foreman,et al.  The state of US health, 1990-2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. , 2013, JAMA.

[19]  L. Miller,et al.  Analysis of postmarket complaints database for the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System®: a minimally invasive treatment for degenerative sacroiliitis and sacroiliac joint disruption , 2013, Medical devices.

[20]  C. Tijssen,et al.  Sciatica-like symptoms and the sacroiliac joint: clinical features and differential diagnosis , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[21]  Gary King,et al.  MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference , 2011 .

[22]  D. Polly,et al.  How Often Is Low Back Pain Not Coming From the Back? , 2009, Spine.

[23]  M. Klein,et al.  The role of sacroiliac joint dysfunction in the genesis of low back pain: the obvious is not always right , 2007, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[24]  R. Buschbacher,et al.  Sacroiliac joint pain: anatomy, biomechanics, diagnosis, and treatment. , 2006, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[25]  G. Andersson Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain , 1999, The Lancet.

[26]  M. Smith-Petersen ARTHRODESIS OF THE SACROILIAC JOINT. A NEW METHOD OF APPROACH , 1921 .

[27]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[28]  L. Rudolf Send Orders of Reprints at Reprints@benthamscience.net Mis Fusion of the Si Joint: Does Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion Affect Patient Outcomes? , 2022 .