Dataset Information

Improvement in Health State Utility after Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Comparison to Normal Populations.

ABSTRACT: Study Design?Prospective cohort study. Objective?The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is an important cause of lower back pain. The degree to which minimally invasive surgical fusion of the SIJ improves health state utility has not been previously documented. Methods?Health state utility values were calculated using the EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) at baseline and 6 and 12 months after SIJ fusion surgery in subjects participating in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial (n?=?172). Values were compared with individuals who participated in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (National Health Measurement Study [NHMS], n?=?3,844). Health utility values in the SIJ cohort were compared with those of the NMHS participants using both weighted linear regression and calculation of "health quantile" (i.e., percentile of health normalized to the NHMS cohort adjusted for age and gender). Results?Baseline health state utility was significantly depressed in SIJ patients compared with normal subjects (SF-6D 0.509 versus 0.789, SF-36 physical component summary 31.7 versus 49.2, SF-36 mental component summary 8.5 versus 53.8, EQ-5D 0.433 versus 0.868; all p?

SUBMITTER: Cher DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4771516 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improvement in Health State Utility after Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Comparison to Normal Populations.

Cher Daniel J DJ Polly David W DW

Global spine journal 20150625 2

Study Design Prospective cohort study. Objective The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is an important cause of lower back pain. The degree to which minimally invasive surgical fusion of the SIJ improves health state utility has not been previously documented. Methods Health state utility values were calculated using the EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) at baseline and 6 and 12 months after SIJ fusion surgery in subjects participating in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial (n = 172). Valu ...[more]

PMID: 26933610

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim was to identify the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MI SIJF) surgery with titanium triangular implants for patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain who have failed conservative management, compared to non-surgical management (NSM) from a National Health Service (NHS) England perspective.MethodsOver a time horizon of 5 years, a cohort state transition model compared the costs and outcomes of treating patients with MI SIJF to those of traditional NSM treatment pathways. The NSM arm included two treatments: grouped physical therapy and corticosteroid injections (PTSI) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Three different strategies were considered: (1) a stepped pathway, (2) patients split between PTSI and RFA, and (3) RFA only. The outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in 2018 British pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model results.ResultsPatients undergoing MI SIJF accrued total procedure-related and pain-management costs of £8358, while NSM treatment strategy 1 had total costs of £6880. The MI SIJF cohort had 2.98 QALYs compared to strategy 1 with 2.30 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER for MI SIJF versus strategy 1 of £2164/QALY gained. Strategy 2 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6564) and 2.26 QALYs, and this resulted in an ICER of £2468/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Strategy 3 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6580), and this resulted in 2.28 QALYs and an ICER of £2518/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained, MI SIJF has a probability of being cost-effective versus NSM strategies of 96%, 97%, and 91% for strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively.ConclusionMI SIJF appears to be cost-effective over a 5-year time horizon when compared to traditional NSM pathways in an NHS context.

Project description:Sacroiliac joint fusions (SIJF) have been the subject of many research studies. The technical success of an SIJF is in part determined by whether osseous bridging occurs across the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). However, no validated SIJF assessment method has been described. Our objective was to document previously described SIJF assessment methods and define and validate a detailed assessment system for SIJF. Our results are only intended to establish computed tomography (CT)-based guidelines for SIJF to be used in a subsequent large clinical study to correlate them with clinical outcomes. The SIJF literature was reviewed to document previous descriptions of SIJF assessments. A detailed system was then developed for assessing SIJF from CT exams. To provide data that can be used to address a range of research questions, the system included assessing bridging bone relative to the SIJ anatomy, bridging bone immediately adjacent to the threaded implants crossing the joint, as well as bridging bone close to but not immediately adjacent to the implants. The system was applied to assessing SIJF from thin-slice CT exams in 19 patients 12 months following surgery. Two experienced radiologists implemented the assessment system, and in the event of a disagreement, an adjudicator was used. Most prior studies provide very little detail about how SIJF was assessed. Using the new assessment system, the agreement between the primary readers was substantial (0.67 using Gwet's AC1 statistic). Bridging bone representing a fusion of the SIJ was identified in most patients both immediately adjacent to the threaded implants crossing the joint, as well as distant to the implants. A detailed radiographic assessment system proved to be applicable to SIJF. The assessment system includes explicit language describing the location and extent of bridging bone across the SIJ. Standardization of the assessment of the SIJFs may allow for a more meaningful comparison of data between studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The evidence base supporting minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion (SIJF) surgery is increasing. The work relative value units (RVUs) associated with minimally invasive SIJF are seemingly low. To date, only one published study describes the relative work intensity associated with minimally invasive SIJF. No study has compared work intensity vs other commonly performed spine surgery procedures. METHODS:Charts of 192 patients at five sites who underwent either minimally invasive SIJF (American Medical Association [AMA] CPT® code 27279) or lumbar microdiscectomy (AMA CPT® code 63030) were reviewed. Abstracted were preoperative times associated with diagnosis and patient care, intraoperative parameters including operating room (OR) in/out times and procedure start/stop times, and postoperative care requirements. Additionally, using a visual analog scale, surgeons estimated the intensity of intraoperative care, including mental, temporal, and physical demands and effort and frustration. Work was defined as operative time multiplied by task intensity. RESULTS:Patients who underwent minimally invasive SIJF were more likely female. Mean procedure times were lower in SIJF by about 27.8 minutes (P<0.0001) and mean total OR times were lower by 27.9 minutes (P<0.0001), but there was substantial overlap across procedures. Mean preservice and post-service total labor times were longer in minimally invasive SIJF (preservice times longer by 63.5 minutes [P<0.0001] and post-service labor times longer by 20.2 minutes [P<0.0001]). The number of postoperative visits was higher in minimally invasive SIJF. Mean total service time (preoperative + OR time + postoperative) was higher in the minimally invasive SIJF group (261.5 vs 211.9 minutes, P<0.0001). Intraoperative intensity levels were higher for mental, physical, effort, and frustration domains (P<0.0001 each). After taking into account intensity, intraoperative workloads showed substantial overlap. CONCLUSION:Compared to a commonly performed lumbar spine surgical procedure, lumbar microdiscectomy, that currently has a higher work RVU, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative workload for minimally invasive SIJF is higher. The work RVU for minimally invasive SIJF should be adjusted upward as the relative amount of work is comparable.

Project description:STUDY DESIGN: Systematic reviewObjective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of fusion versus denervation for chronic sacroiliac joint pain after failed conservative management. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: METHODS of confirming the sacroiliac joint as a pain source have been extensively studied and reported in the literature. After confirmation of the origin of the pain by positive local anesthetic blocks, chronic sacroiliac joint pain is usually managed with a combination of medication, physical therapies, and injections. We have chosen to compare two alternative treatments for sacroiliac pain that was refractory to conservative therapies. METHODS: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating fusion or denervation for chronic sacroiliac joint pain after failed conservative management. Studies involving only conservative treatment or traumatic onset of injury were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified eleven articles (six fusion, five denervation) meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients report satisfaction after both treatments. Both treatments reported mean improvements in pain and functional outcome. Rates of complications were higher among fusion studies (13.7%) compared to denervation studies (7.3%). Only fusion studies reported infections (5.3%). No infections were reported among denervation patients. The evidence for all findings were very low to low; therefore, the relative efficacy or safety of one treatment over another cannot be established. CONCLUSIONS: Sacroiliac joint fusion or denervation can reduce pain for many patients. Whether a true arthrodesis of the joint is achieved by percutaneous techniques is open to question and whether denervation of the joint gives durable pain relief is not clear. Further comparative studies of these two techniques may provide the answers.

Dataset Information

Improvement in Health State Utility after Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Comparison to Normal Populations.

Publications

Improvement in Health State Utility after Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: Comparison to Normal Populations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets