Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleMinimally Invasive Surgery

Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy

Peter G. Whang, Vikas Patel, Bradley Duhon, Bengt Sturesson, Daniel Cher, W. Carlton Reckling, Robyn Capobianco and David Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery December 2023, 17 (6) 794-808; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8543
Peter G. Whang
1 Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vikas Patel
2 Department of Orthopedics and Spine Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bradley Duhon
3 Front Range Spine and Neurosurgery, Lone Tree, CO, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bengt Sturesson
4 Department of Orthopedics, Ängelholm Hospital, Ängelholm, Sweden
MD, PʜD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Cher
5 SI-BONE, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W. Carlton Reckling
5 SI-BONE, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robyn Capobianco
5 SI-BONE, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA
PʜD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: robyn.capobianco@si-bone.com
David Polly
6 Department of Orthopedics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Diagram of trajectories for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Baseline and last follow-up sacroiliac (SI) joint pain scores by procedure, study, and device. Baseline scores are shown in green, and last follow-up scores are shown in blue. Sarkar reported (a) lateral transiliac and (b) posterolateral transiliac cohorts. Wider lines represent random effects meta-analytic means and 95% CIs. Sarkar reported (a) lateral transiliac and (b) posterolateral transiliac cohorts. Sayed 2021b refers to reference 87. *Cohort contained mostly TTI (n = 36) with some screws (n = 9). TTI, triangular titanium implants; CTI, cylindrical titanium implants.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Baseline and last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index scores by procedure, study, and device. Baseline scores are shown in green; last follow-up scores are shown in blue. Wider lines represent random effects meta-analytic means and 95% CIs. Ledonio 2014a refers to reference 64 and Ledonio 2014b refers to reference 65. *Cohort contained mostly TTI (n = 36) with some screws (n = 9). TTI, triangular titanium implants; CTI, cylindrical titanium implants.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Improvement in sacroiliac (SI) joint pain score by procedure and device. Sarkar reported (a) lateral transiliac and (b) posterolateral transiliac cohorts. Sayed 2021 refers to reference 86 and Sayed 2021b refers to 87. *Cohort contained mostly TTI (n = 36) with some screws (n = 9). CTI, cylindrical titanium implants; TTI, triangular titanium implants.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score by procedure and device. Ledonio 2014a refers to reference 64 and Ledonio 2014b refers to reference 65. CTI, cylindrical titanium implants; TTI, triangular titanium implants.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Summary of data abstraction from each identified study.

    CharacteristicVariable TypeChoices/Comment
    Study designBinaryProspective vs retrospective
    Procedure typeNominalTransiliac (either lateral or posterolateral) or posterior interpositional
    Device/allograft usedNominalName of device
    Number of patients treatedInteger
    Number of patients with follow-up scoresInteger
    Baseline and last follow-up pain score (visual analog scale or numeric pain rating scale)ContinuousConverted to 0- to 10-point scale
    Baseline and last ODIContinuousFor both pain score and ODI, when multiple scheduled follow-up visits were available, the last available reported mean score was extracted.
    Safety outcomes:
    • Symptomatic implant malposition—typically resulting in new onset acute radicular pain—requiring surgical intervention.

    • Symptomatic implant malposition causing bowel/bladder perforation.

    • Implant breakage.

    • Implant migration.

    • Late removal—typically for ongoing or recurrent pain.

    • Dislodgement of bone fragment into foramen during placement.

    • Fracture (sacral or ilial) during placement.

    • Wound infection requiring notable treatment such as wound exploration or implant removal.

    • Bleeding requiring surgical intervention.

    IntegerFracture defined as involving both cortices of the ilium or sacrum and displacement of a significant fragment of bone.
    • Abbreviation: ODI, Oswestry Disability Index.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Summary of available studies for efficacy (pain scores and ODI).

    ProcedureDeviceCohortsPatients
    Studies reporting SI Joint Pain Scores
     LTIHMA screw379
    iFuse311605
    Sacrofuse13
    SI-LOK3136
    SImmetry4288
    Torpedo115
    Total432126
     PLTIRialto3122
    Sacrix119
    SI-LOK136
    Total6228
     PIDIANA2190
    LINQ4237
    Threaded cage113
    Total8497
     Total572851
    Studies reporting ODI
     LTIHMA screw19
    iFuse231161
    Sacrofuse13
    SI-LOK272
    SImmetry screw3269
    Torpedo115
    Simmetry, Corelink, or LnK155
    Total321584
     PLTIRialto2135
     PIDIANA threaded cage2190
    LINQ169
    Total3259
     Total371978
    • Abbreviations: HMA, hollow modular anchor; LTI, lateral transiliac; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PI, posterior interpositional; PLTI, posterolateral transiliac.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Proportion of studies noted to be prospective.

    Studies Reporting Pain ScoresStudies Reporting Oswestry Disability Index
    Procedure N/Total% N/Total%
    LTI9/4321%8/3225%
    PLTI0/60%0/20%
    PI3/838%2/367%
    Total12/5721%10/3727%
    • Abbreviations: LTI, lateral transiliac; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; PI, posterior interpositional; PLTI, posterolateral transiliac.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Safety outcomes by procedure, device, and study design.

    ProcedureDeviceDesignAuthor, Year N Mean Follow-Up, moAcute Symptomatic MalpositionBreakageMigrationBowel/Bladder PerforationLate RemovalDislodgment of Bone Fragment Into ForamenFractureWound InfectionBleeding Requiring Surgical Intervention
    Lateral transiliacHMA screwRetroAl-Khayer, 200819 940000000010
    HMA screwProspMason, 201320 5536200000000
    HMA screwRetroKhurana, 200921 1517000000000
    iFuseRetroBornemann, 201722 2424000000000
    iFuseRetroCummings, 201323 1812100000000
    iFuseProspDengler, 201914 5224100000001
    iFuseProspDuhon, 201615 17224200000061
    iFuseRetroNovak, 202124 2112000000000
    iFuseProspPatel, 202025 5112100000000
    iFuseProspPolly, 201613 10224100010100
    iFuseRetroRudolf, 201426 1760000000021
    iFuseProspWhang, 201927 10360000000000
    iFuseRetroAmer, 202228 2020200000000
    iFuseRetroBeijk, 202129 1636100000000
    iFuseRetroClaus, 202030 , a 8212000020000
    iFuseRetroCleveland, 201931 579000000011
    iFuseRetroGaetani, 201332 1210000000000
    iFuseRetroGraham-Smith, 201333 11324300000000
    iFuseRetroHermans, 202234 2912000000010
    iFuseRetroKasapovic, 202135 2648000000000
    iFuseRetroKurosawa, 202236 536000000000
    iFuseRetroLedonio, 201437 1712100000001
    iFuseRetroLedonio, 201438 2214000020000
    iFuseRetroRainov, 201839 1607000000000
    iFuseRetroRudolf, 201240 5024300000040
    iFuseRetroSachs, 201241 1112000000000
    iFuseRetroSachs, 201342 4012000000000
    iFuseRetroSachs, 201443 14416100000000
    iFuseRetroSachs, 201644 10744100020000
    iFuseRetroSchmidt, 202045 1958000000000
    iFuseRetroSchroeder, 201346 610000000000
    iFuseRetroSoliman, 202247 3344000001000
    iFuseRetroVanaclocha, 201748 2741000000000
    iFuseRetroWessel, 202249 4512000000000
    iFuseRetroKancherla, 201750 367100000000
    SambaRetroKancherla, 201750 97200000000
    SI-LOKProspRappoport, 2017/202151,52 3224000000000
    SI-LOKRetroWales, 202053 4012000040000
    SImmetryProspAraghi, 201754 506100000000
    SImmetryRetroCross, 201855 1924000000000
    SImmetryProspKucharzyk, 202256 20112000000000
    SImmetryRetroKube, 201657 1812000000000
    TorpedoRetroKasapovic, 202258 156000000000
    Simmetry, Corelink, and LnkRetroAbbasi, 202159 6212000000001
    Posterolateral transiliacRialtoRetroClaus, 202030 7412000060000
    RialtoRetroRajpal, 201860 2419000000000
    RialtoRetroSarkar, 202261 2413000000000
    SacrofuseRetroChin, 202162 324000000000
    SI-LOKRetroChaves, 202263 3613000000000
    SI-LOKRetroSarkar, 202261 1913000010000
    Posterior interpositionalDIANARetroEndres, 201364 1913000000000
    DIANAProspFuchs, 201865 17124400030000
    LINQProspCalodney, 202266 6960NRNR000000
    LINQRetroDeer, 202167 1113NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
    LINQRetroSayed, 202168 5012001000000
    LINQRetroSayed, 202269 710NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
    Threaded cageProspWise, 200870 1330000010000
    • Abbreviations: HMA, hollow modular anchor; NR, not reported; Prosp, prospective study; Retro, retrospective study.

    • ↵a Lateral cohort.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Summary of available studies for safety outcomes.

    ProcedureDeviceCohortsPatients
    Posterior interpositionalDIANA2190
    LINQ4237
    PSiF157
    Threaded cage113
    Total8497
    Lateral transiliacHollow modular anchor screw379
    iFuse321637
    Samba19
    SI-LOK3157
    SImmetry4288
    Torpedo115
    Various2101
    Simmetry, Corelink, and Lnk162
    Total472348
    Posterolateral transiliacRialto4240
    Sacrix119
    Sacrofuse13
    SI-LOK255
    Total8317
    AllTotal633162
    • View popup
    Table 6

    Meta-analytic summary of safety outcomes.

    OutcomeLateral TransiliacPosterolateral TransiliacPosterior Interpositional
    PELCLUCLPELCLUCLPELCLUCL
    Acute symptomatic malposition0.4290.1560.8360.0000.0000.3030.20.0001.42
    Breakage0.0000.0000.0410.0000.0000.3030.0000.0000.253
    Migration0.0000.0000.0410.0000.0000.3030.0350.0000.476
    Bowel perforation0.0000.0000.0430.0000.0000.3030.000.0000.253
    Removal for pain0.0590.0020.1991.110.0003.830.480.0001.72
    Dislodgment of bone0.0010.0000.0540.0000.0000.3030.0000.0000.253
    Fracture0.0020.0000.0630.0000.0000.3030.0000.0000.253
    Wound infection0.1450.0150.4080.0000.0000.3030.0000.0000.253
    Bleeding requiring surgery0.0390.0000.1630.0000.0000.3030.0000.0000.253
    • Abbreviations: LCL, lower 95% confidence limit; PE, point estimate; UCL, upper 95% confidence limit.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 17, Issue 6
1 Dec 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy
Peter G. Whang, Vikas Patel, Bradley Duhon, Bengt Sturesson, Daniel Cher, W. Carlton Reckling, Robyn Capobianco, David Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery Dec 2023, 17 (6) 794-808; DOI: 10.14444/8543

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy
Peter G. Whang, Vikas Patel, Bradley Duhon, Bengt Sturesson, Daniel Cher, W. Carlton Reckling, Robyn Capobianco, David Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery Dec 2023, 17 (6) 794-808; DOI: 10.14444/8543
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparative Review of Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Outcomes, and Complications
  • Key Considerations in Surgical Decision-Making on the Side of Approach for Lumbar Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion Techniques
  • A Spine Surgeon’s Learning Curve With the Minimally Invasive L5 to S1 Lateral ALIF Surgical Approach: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations
Show more Minimally Invasive Surgery

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • sacroiliac joint
  • sacroiliac joint fusion
  • lateral transiliac
  • systematic review
  • meta-analysis

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire