Comparison of a Novel Posterior Integrated Transfixation Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Approach to the Posterolateral and Lateral Approaches: A Cadaveric Biomechanical and Computational Analysis of the Fixation, Invasiveness, and Fusion Area

Oluwatodimu Richard Raji,1,2 Joshua H Tandio,1 Sarah Mayer,1 Alexander Escobar,3 Brett A Himmelwright,4 Douglas P Beall,5 David L Caraway,6 Jeremi M Leasure1,7 1Medical Device Development, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2Department of Orthopedics, UCSF Health St. Mary’s Hospital, San Francisco, CA, USA; 3University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA; 4Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, Camp Hill, PA, USA; 5Comprehensive Specialty Care, Edmond, OK, USA; 6Nevro Corporation, Redwood City, CA, USA; 7California State University College of Engineering, Northridge, CA, USACorrespondence: Oluwatodimu Richard Raji, Medical Device Development, San Francisco, CA, USA, Tel +1 510 570 7741, Email [email protected]: To concurrently assess and compare the fixation efficacy, invasiveness, and fusion potential of a posterior integrated transfixation cage system to the posterolateral threaded implant and lateral triangular rod systems, in a cadaveric model.Methods and Materials: Twelve (12) cadaveric sacroiliac joint specimens were utilized and tested within the single-leg stance multidirectional pure moment bending model. Each specimen was tested in the intact, destabilized, treated (using posterior, posterolateral, and lateral systems), and post-fatigue conditions by applying 0 to ± 7.5 Nm of moment in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending while measuring the angular range of motion between the sacrum and ilium. Computational models were reconstructed from Computed Tomography (CT) scans and manufacturer surgical technique guides. The models were utilized to quantify the volume of bone removed during implantation and the surface area available for fusion.Results: The posterior integrated transfixation cage system and the lateral triangular rods produced equivalent motion reduction in all motion planes (P > 0.583). The posterolateral cylindrical threaded implant produced less motion reductions than the posterior and lateral implants in flexion-extension (6% ± 3% vs 37% ± 10% and 33% ± 11%, respectively, P < 0.05). The posterior system removed 22%-60% less bone volume from the sacrum and ilium (P< 0.10), introduced 200%-270% more implant surface to the joint space (P< 0.01) and decorticated 75%-375% more joint surface area (P< 0.01).Conclusion: The posterior integrated transfixation single-implant cage system is superior to the posterolateral cylindrical threaded single-implant system. Its performance in osteopenic bone is equivalent to the lateral triangular rod system in healthy bone; however, the posterior integrated transfixation cage system requires a single implant, while the lateral triangular rod system requires three. The posterior implant removes the least bone volume and has the most surface area for fusion, providing a significantly better opportunity for robust sacroiliac joint arthrodesis.Keywords: arthrodesis, integrated fixation, bone volume, fatigue, durability, sacroiliac joint fusion