Posterior oblique technique for sacroiliac joint fusion leads to greater pain relief and similar improvement in function compared to the lateral technique: A retrospective, comparative study

Background: Management of chronic sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment is increasingly turning toward minimally invasive SIJ fusion. There are different techniques available to perform this procedure, with the lateral technique being more commonly studied than the posterior oblique technique. This study examined the effects of these techniques on pain relief and functional improvement, both preoperatively and at a 12-month follow-up. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 45 patients who underwent SIJ fusion. Included patients were ≥50 years old, nonresponsive to conservative treatment. Subjects were divided into 2 cohorts based on the SIJ fusion technique. Primary outcomes were pain relief, measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional improvement, determined by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); both were recorded and assessed at baseline, postoperative, and the change from pre- to postoperative. Additionally, data regarding patient demographics, previous lumbar fusion, operative time, and duration of hospital stay were collected and analyzed. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical variables exhibited no significant differences in distribution between groups. The posterior oblique cohort demonstrated a substantial reduction in operative time (over 50%) and duration of hospital stay compared to lateral cohort. Pain relief (postoperative VAS: lateral 3.5±1.7 vs. posterior oblique 2.4±1.5 [p=.02]) and functional improvement (postoperative ODI: lateral 29.6±7.3 vs. posterior oblique 21±5.7 [p≤.001]) were significantly better in the posterior oblique group. Pre- to postoperative improvement analysis indicated greater reduction in pain (VAS: lateral −4.4±1.9 vs. posterior oblique −6.1±1.5 [p=.002]) in the posterior oblique group. Conclusions: Compared to the lateral technique group, patients undergoing minimally invasive SIJ fusion through the posterior oblique technique experienced greater pain relief and demonstrated a trend toward better functional improvement, with shorter operative times and duration of hospital stay. The posterior oblique technique may be more efficient and beneficial to manage patients suffering from chronic SIJ pain through joint fusion

Patient-reported outcome tools and baseline scores vary by country and region for arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review

Background: Different patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools are used in patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) which complicates outcome comparisons. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare PRO usage and baseline scores across world regions and countries in patients with ARCR of massive rotator cuff tears (MRCT). Methods: A systematic review was performed on ARCR for MRCT. The search was conducted from September to November of 2022 using the MEDLINE database for articles published in the last 15 years. Thirty-seven articles were included after initial screening and full-text review. In each article, PRO usage, baseline scores, and country of origin were collected. PRO usage was reported in percentages and baseline scores were normalized for each region to facilitate comparisons. Normalization was performed using the PRO means from each article. These averages were converted to fractions using the worst and best possible scores. These were combined into a single numerical value, expressed as a decimal from 0 to 1, using the total sample size for each tool per region. Values closer to 0 represent worse functional outcomes. Results: Thirty-two percent (n = 12) of articles were from Asia, 43.2% (n = 16) from Europe, 5.4% (n = 2) from the Middle East, and 18.9% (n = 7) from North America. The most commonly reported PRO tools were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) in 19 papers, Constant–Murley Score (CMS) in 26 papers, Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS) in 19 papers, and University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) in 11 papers. ASES was reported in 51% of articles with 63% being from Asia (n = 12) compared to 21% from North America (n = 4). CMS was reported in 70% of studies with 58% being from Europe. Upon normalization, the preoperative score ranged from 0.30 to 0.44. Europe (0.39), and North America (0.40) showed similar scores. The lowest and highest scores were seen in the Middle East (0.3) and Asia (0.44) respectively. Conclusion: There is no standardized method to report outcomes in patients undergoing ARCR for MRCT. Great variation in usage exists in PROs which complicates data comparison between world regions. With normalization, baseline scores where similar among Asia, North America, and Europe, and lowest in the Middle East