Basic Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Orthop. Mar 18, 2018; 9(3): 14-23
Published online Mar 18, 2018. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14
Sacroiliac joint stability: Finite element analysis of implant number, orientation, and superior implant length
Derek P Lindsey, Ali Kiapour, Scott A Yerby, Vijay K Goel
Derek P Lindsey, Scott A Yerby, Research and Development, SI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA 95128, United States
Ali Kiapour, Vijay K Goel, Engineering Center for Orthopaedic Research Excellenc, Departments of Bioengineering and Orthopaedic Surgery, Colleges of Engineering and Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, United States
Author contributions: Lindsey DP, Yerby SA and Goel VK designed the research; Kiapour A performed the finite element analysis; Lindsey DP analyzed the results; Lindsey DP, Kiapour A, Yerby SA and Goel VK wrote the paper.
Supported by SI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA, United States.
Conflict-of-interest statement: Lindsey DP and Yerby SA are employees of SI-BONE, Inc.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Derek P Lindsey, MSc, Research Scientist, Research and Development, SI-BONE, Inc., 3055 Olin Avenue, Suite 2200, San Jose, CA 95218, United States. dlindsey@si-bone.com
Telephone: +1-408-2070700 Fax: +1-408-5578312
Received: December 5, 2017
Peer-review started: December 6, 2017
First decision: December 18, 2017
Revised: December 22, 2017
Accepted: February 4, 2018
Article in press: February 5, 2018
Published online: March 18, 2018
Abstract
AIM

To analyze how various implants placement variables affect sacroiliac (SI) joint range of motion.

METHODS

An experimentally validated finite element model of the lumbar spine and pelvis was used to simulate a fusion of the SI joint using various placement configurations of triangular implants (iFuse Implant System®). Placement configurations were varied by changing implant orientation, superior implant length, and number of implants. The range of motion of the SI joint was calculated using a constant moment of 10 N-m with a follower load of 400 N. The changes in motion were compared between the treatment groups to assess how the different variables affected the overall motion of the SI joint.

RESULTS

Transarticular placement of 3 implants with superior implants that end in the middle of the sacrum resulted in the greatest reduction in range of motion (flexion/extension = 73%, lateral bending = 42%, axial rotation = 72%). The range of motions of the SI joints were reduced with use of transarticular orientation (9%-18%) when compared with an inline orientation. The use of a superior implant that ended mid-sacrum resulted in median reductions of (8%-14%) when compared with a superior implant that ended in the middle of the ala. Reducing the number of implants, resulted in increased SI joint range of motions for the 1 and 2 implant models of 29%-133% and 2%-39%, respectively, when compared with the 3 implant model.

CONCLUSION

Using a validated finite element model we demonstrated that placement of 3 implants across the SI joint using a transarticular orientation with superior implant reaching the sacral midline resulted in the most stable construct. Additional clinical studies may be required to confirm these results.

Keywords: Fusion, Biomechanics, Minimally invasive surgery, Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, Finite element analysis

Core tip: Minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac (SI) joint is a potential treatment for patients suffering with symptoms related to the SI joint. This study used finite element analysis to investigate how implant orientation, superior implant length, and implant number affect SI joint range of motion. The results of this study demonstrate that placement of 3 implants across the SI joint using a transarticular orientation with superior implant reaching the sacral midline resulted in the most stable construct.