Back to Journals » Medical Devices: Evidence and Research » Volume 7

Evaluation of a minimally invasive procedure for sacroiliac joint fusion – an in vitro biomechanical analysis of initial and cycled properties

Authors Lindsey D, Perez-Orribo L, Rodriguez-Martinez N, Reyes PM, Newcomb A, Cable A, Hickam G, Yerby SA, Crawford NR

Received 4 March 2014

Accepted for publication 8 April 2014

Published 15 May 2014 Volume 2014:7 Pages 131—137


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Derek P Lindsey,1 Luis Perez-Orribo,2 Nestor Rodriguez-Martinez,2 Phillip M Reyes,2 Anna Newcomb,2 Alexandria Cable,2 Grace Hickam,2 Scott A Yerby,1 Neil R Crawford2

1SI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA; 2Spinal Biomechanics Research Laboratory, Barrow Neurological Institute, St Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Introduction: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain has become a recognized factor in low back pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a minimally invasive surgical SI joint fusion procedure on the in vitro biomechanics of the SI joint before and after cyclic loading.
Methods: Seven cadaveric specimens were tested under the following conditions: intact, posterior ligaments (PL) and pubic symphysis (PS) cut, treated (three implants placed), and after 5,000 cycles of flexion–extension. The range of motion (ROM) in flexion–extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was determined with an applied 7.5 N • m moment using an optoelectronic system. Results for each ROM were compared using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Holm–Šidák post-hoc test.
Results: Placement of three fusion devices decreased the flexion–extension ROM. Lateral bending and axial rotation were not significantly altered. All PL/PS cut and post-cyclic ROMs were larger than in the intact condition. The 5,000 cycles of flexion–extension did not lead to a significant increase in any ROMs.
Discussion: In the current model, placement of three 7.0 mm iFuse Implants significantly decreased the flexion–extension ROM. Joint ROM was not increased by 5,000 flexion–extension cycles.

Keywords: biomechanics, iliosacral, arthrodesis, cadaver

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]