Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome.

Authors: Uwe, Schütz; Dieter, Grob;

Poor outcome following bilateral sacroiliac joint fusion for degenerative sacroiliac joint syndrome.

Abstract

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of bilateral sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion, using a new technique, in patients with a chronic SIJ syndrome. Seventeen patients with chronic low back pain, with a positive response to specific diagnostic tests for the SIJ, were considered candidates for bilateral sacroiliac fusion. The surgical indication was based on the results of local anaesthetic joint infiltration, temporary external fixation or bone scan. Ten patients had had previous surgery on the lumbar spine. Bilateral posterior SIJ fusion was performed with internal fixation and decortication of the sacroiliac joint, using a separate approach to each joint. Local bone grafting was performed. At the time of follow-up (on average 39 months after surgery), 3 patients reported moderate or absent pain, 8 marked pain and 6 severe pain. Seven patients showed a symptomatic non-union; union occurred in only 6 cases. Eighteen percent of the patients were satisfied, but in the other 82% the results were not acceptable. Reoperation was performed in 65% of the patients. Our results with bilateral posterior SIJ fusion were disappointing, which may be related with difficulties in patient selection, as well as with surgical technique. Better diagnostic procedures and possibly other surgical techniques might provide more predictable results, but this remains to be demonstrated.

Keywords

Adult, Male, Sacroiliac Joint, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Chronic Disease, Humans, Female, Orthopedic Procedures, Joint Diseases, Low Back Pain, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    56
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
56
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!