-
- Scott J Halperin, Meera M Dhodapkar, Will Jiang, Ali Elaydi, Yusef J Jordan, Peter G Whang, and Jonathan N Grauer.
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
- Spine. 2024 Apr 15; 49 (8): 577582577-582.
Study DesignRetrospective cohort analysis.ObjectiveTo assess the evolution of patients undergoing sacroiliac (SI) fusion with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) relative to open approaches.Summary Of Background DataThe SI joint can be a contributor to lumbopelvic symptoms. The MIS approach to SI fusion has been shown to have fewer complications compared with the open approach. Recent trends and evolved patient populations have not been well-characterized.Materials And MethodsData were abstracted from the large, national, multi-insurance, administrative 2015-2020 M151 PearlDiver database. The incidence, trends, and patient characteristics of MIS, as well as open, SI fusions for adult patients with degenerative indications, were determined. Univariable and multivariable analyses were then performed to compare the MIS relative to open populations. The primary outcome was to assess the trends of MIS and open approaches for SI fusions.ResultsIn total, 11,217 SI fusions were identified (of which 81.7% were MIS), with a clear increase in numbers over the years from 2015 (n=1318, 62.3% of which were MIS) to 2020 (n=3214 86.6% of which were MIS). Independent predictors of MIS (as opposed to open) SI fusion included: older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.09 per decade increase), higher Elixhauser-Comorbidity Index (OR 1.04 per two-point increase), and geographic region (relative to South, Northeast OR 1.20 and West OR 1.64). As might be expected, 90-day adverse events were lower for MIS than open cases (OR 0.73).ConclusionThe presented data quantify the increasing incidence of SI fusions over the years, with the increase being driven by MIS cases. This was largely related to an expanded population (those who are older and with greater comorbidity), fitting the definition of disruptive technology with lesser adverse events than open procedures. Nonetheless, geographic variation highlights the differential adoption of this technology.Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.