Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion

Figures & data

Figure 1 Postoperative radiograph of a pelvis with a three-hole reconstruction plate spanning the sacroiliac joint.

Note: The ‘L’ represents the patient’s left.

Figure 2 Postoperative radiograph demonstrating placement of three fusion implants across the sacroiliac joint.

Table 1 Comparative analysis of demographics and perioperative measures between groups

	Open (n=22)	MIS (n=17)	P-value
Sex, M:F ratio	9:13	6:11	0.7526†
History of spine surgery	50% (11/22)	82% (14/17)	0.0490†
Age, years	51 (34–74)	66 (39–82)	<0.0018*
Hospital stay, days	3 (2–6)	1 (1–2)	<0.0001*
Surgical time (minutes)	128 (73–180)	27 (18–72)	<0.0001*

Notes: Values are shown as the median (range), unless otherwise indicated.

† Fisher’s exact test

* Mann–Whitney U test. Bold P-values indicate statistical significance (corrected P≤0.01). This corrected P-value was derived using the Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons.²²

Abbreviations: MIS, minimally invasive surgery; M, male; F, female.

Figure 3 Plot of ODI scores per patient in open sacroiliac joint fusion group.

Abbreviations: SI, sacroiliac; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index,¹⁸ Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative

Figure 4 Plot of ODI scores per patient in the MIS SI joint fusion group.

Abbreviations: SI, sacroiliac; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index;¹⁸ MIS, minimally invasive surgery; Preop, preoperative; Postop, postoperative.

Table 2 Comparing ODI scores between groups and within groups

	Open (n=22)	MIS (n=17)	P-value between groups
Baseline ODI (%)	64 (44–78)	53 (14–84)	0.0488*
12-month ODI (%)	46 (10–80)	13 (0–38)	<0.0001*
ODI difference % change in ODI	9 (−8 to 56)	42 (0–80)	<0.0008*
	16% (–13% to 85%)	78% (0%–100%)	<0.0001*
P-value within groups	<0.0005‡	<0.0002‡

Notes: Values are shown as the median (range), unless otherwise indicated.

* Mann–Whitney U test

‡ Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Bold P-values indicate statistical significance (corrected P≤0.01). This corrected P-value was derived using the Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons.²²

Abbreviations: MIS, minimally invasive surgery; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.¹⁸

Table 3 Comparing patients reaching MCID between groups

	Open (n=22)	MIS (n=17)	P-value
Patients reaching MCID of ≥12.8 points (n)	10 (45%)	14 (82%)	0.0204†

Notes:

† Fisher’s exact test. This corrected P-value of ≤0.01 was derived using the Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons.²²

Abbreviations: MIS, minimally invasive surgery; MCID, minimal clinically important difference.

HochbergYA sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significanceBiometrika198875800802

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

DjurasovicMGlassmanSDDimarJR2ndDoes fusion status correlate with patient outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion?Spine20113640440921325934

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar