search
Back to results

Investigation of Sacroiliac Fusion Treatment (INSITE) (INSITE)

Primary Purpose

Degenerative Sacroiliitis, Sacroiliac Joint Disruption

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
iFuse Implant System
Non-surgical management
Sponsored by
SI-BONE, Inc.
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Degenerative Sacroiliitis focused on measuring si joint, si joint pain, si joint injury, si joint treatment, si joint injections, si joint inflammation, si joint problems, si joint symptoms, hypermobile si joint, si joint arthritis, si joint pain treatment, inflamed si joint, si joint sclerosis, locked si joint, si joint injuries, si joint disease, si joint infection, sacroiliac joint pelvic pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis treatment

Eligibility Criteria

21 Years - 70 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Age 21-70 at time of screening
  2. Patient has lower back pain for >6 months inadequately responsive to conservative care
  3. Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint disruption or degenerative sacroiliitis based on ALL of the following:

    1. Patient has pain at or close to the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) with possible radiation into buttocks, posterior thigh or groin and can point with a single finger to the location of pain (Fortin Finger Test), and
    2. Patient has at least 3 of 5 physical examination maneuvers specific for the SI joint (see Table 3), and
    3. Patient has improvement in lower back pain numeric rating scale (NRS) of at least 50% after injection of local anesthetic into affected SI joint(s) (see Section 3.6.4), and
    4. One or more of the following:

    i. SI joint disruption:

    • Asymmetric SI joint widening on X-ray or CT scan, or
    • Leakage of contrast on diagnostic arthrography

    ii. Degenerative sacroiliitis:

    • Radiographic evidence of SI joint degeneration, including sclerosis, osteophytes, subchondral cysts, or vacuum phenomenon on CT or plain film, or
    • Due to prior lumbosacral spine fusion
  4. Baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of at least 30%
  5. Baseline SI joint pain score of at least 50 on 0-100 mm visual analog scale*
  6. Patient has signed study-specific informed consent form
  7. Patient has the necessary mental capacity to participate and is physically able to comply with study protocol requirements

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Severe back pain due to other causes, such as lumbar disc degeneration, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spondylolisthesis, lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar facet degeneration, and lumbar vertebral body fracture**
  2. Other known sacroiliac pathology such as:

    1. Sacral dysplasia
    2. Inflammatory sacroiliitis (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis or other HLA-associated spondyloarthropathy)
    3. Tumor
    4. Infection
    5. Acute fracture
    6. Crystal arthropathy
  3. History of recent (<1 year) major trauma to pelvis
  4. Previously diagnosed osteoporosis (defined as prior T-score <-2.5 or history of osteoporotic fracture). Patients meeting the osteoporosis screening criteria identified by the National Osteoporosis Foundation should be screened for osteoporosis with DEXA.**** See Section 3.6.4.
  5. Osteomalacia or other metabolic bone disease
  6. Chronic rheumatologic condition (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis)
  7. Any condition or anatomy that makes treatment with the iFuse Implant System infeasible
  8. Chondropathy
  9. Known allergy to titanium or titanium alloys
  10. Use of medications known to have detrimental effects on bone quality and soft-tissue healing
  11. Prominent neurologic condition that would interfere with physical therapy
  12. Current local or systemic infection that raises the risk of surgery
  13. Patient currently receiving or seeking worker's compensation, disability remuneration, and/or involved in injury litigation.
  14. Currently pregnant or planning pregnancy in the next 2 years
  15. Patient is a prisoner or a ward of the state.
  16. Known or suspected drug or alcohol abuse***
  17. Diagnosed psychiatric disease (e.g., schizophrenia, major depression, personality disorders) that could interfere with study participation
  18. Patient is participating in an investigational study or has been involved in an investigational study within 3 months prior to evaluation for participation

Sites / Locations

  • University of California, San Diego
  • BASIC Spine
  • University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences
  • Yale University School of Medicine
  • Orthopaedic Clinic of Daytona Beach
  • Brain and Spine Center, LLC
  • Resurgen's Orthopaedics
  • Neurosurgery Consultants/ Riverside Hospital
  • Orthopaedic Center of Southern Illinois
  • Community Neurosurgery Hospital
  • Bluegrass Orthopaedics & Hand Care Research
  • Spine institute of Louisiana
  • University of Minnesota
  • HCA Midwest
  • NeuroSpine Institute, LLC
  • Allegheny General Hospital
  • Medical University of South Carolina
  • Midwest Orthopedic Specialty Hospital
  • Aurora Bay Care Medical Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Active Comparator

Arm Label

iFuse Implant System

Non-Surgical Management

Arm Description

Surgical placement of iFuse implants in the affected SI joint

Medications, SI joint injection, physical therapy and RF ablation of SI joint

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Subject Success
Composite endpoint of reduction from baseline in VAS back pain score by at least 20 mm, lack of device-related serious adverse events, absence of neurologic worsening and absence of surgical re-intervention. Note that the primary endpoint analysis is **intent to treat**, meaning that an outcome (success or failure) is assigned to all subjects randomized and treated. Subjects who withdrew early were deemed study failures.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 1 Month
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points, at post-operative & NSM visit after 1 month. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Si Joint Pain VAS Score at 3 Months
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points, at post-operative & NSM visits after 3 months. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 6 Months
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points, at post-operative & NSM visits after 6 months. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 12 Months
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points compared to baseline. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 24 Months
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points compared to baseline. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points, at month 1. Oswestry Disability Index is a validated measure of disability related to low back pain. There are 10 sections, each with a score between 0-5. Scores are expressed on a percent basis without using the percent term. Scores range from 0 (no disability) to 100 (completely disabled). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points, at month 3. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points, at post-operative visits. 6 month visit. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points compared to baseline. Oswestry Disability Index is a validated measure of disability related to low back pain. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points compared to baseline. Oswestry Disability Index is a validated measure of disability related to low back pain. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at Post-operative Visits
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at post-operative / NSM visits. The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient reported health questionnaire to measure quality of life across 8 domains. The PCS is the Physical Component Summary score. PCS is normed, so that "normal" scores are 50 +- 10. Higher scores indicate higher quality of life; lower scores indicate lower quality of life. SF-36 PCS (NBS, 2009 norms) ranges from 5 (minimum value, poor physical function) to 80 (maximum, excellent clinical function). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at Post-operative Visits
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at post-operative / NSM visits. The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient reported health questionnaire to measure quality of life across 8 domains. The PCS is the Physical Component Summary score. PCS is normed, so that "normal" scores are 50 +- 10. Higher scores indicate higher quality of life; lower scores indicate lower quality of life. SF-36 PCS (NBS, 2009 norms) ranges from 5 (minimum value, poor physical function) to 80 (maximum, excellent clinical function). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at Post-operative Visits
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at post-operative / NSM visits. The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient reported health questionnaire to measure quality of life across 8 domains. The PCS is the Physical Component Summary score. PCS is normed, so that "normal" scores are 50 +- 10. Higher scores indicate higher quality of life; lower scores indicate lower quality of life. SF-36 PCS (NBS, 2009 norms) ranges from 5 (minimum value, poor physical function) to 80 (maximum, excellent clinical function). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at Post-operative Visits
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at post-operative visits. EQ-5D is a five-question broad quality of life measure that can be combined into a single index and represents the time trade-off (TTO) utility of current health. A score of 0 would = worst imaginable health, while a score of 1.0 would be best imaginable health. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at Post-operative Visits
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at post-operative visits. EQ-5D is a five-question broad quality of life measure that can be combined into a single index and represents the time trade-off (TTO) utility of current health. A score of 0 would = worst imaginable health, while a score of 1.0 would be best imaginable health. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at Post-operative Visits
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at post-operative visits. EQ-5D is a five-question broad quality of life measure that can be combined into a single index and represents the time trade-off (TTO) utility of current health. A score of 0 would = worst imaginable health, while a score of 1.0 would be best imaginable health. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Ambulatory Status
Time to full ambulation among those without full ambulation at baseline. 60 days was the median of time to full ambulation for the iFuse implant System arm.
Work Status
Proportion of non-working (due to back pain or other reasons) subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Work Status
Non-working subjects (due to back pain or other reasons) who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Work Status
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Work Status
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Work Status
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Work Status
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Number of Participants With Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
Any event meeting ISO 14155 definition for serious adverse event at following time points: during procedure (if randomized to iFuse), hospital discharge (if iFuse, typically 1-2 days), and 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomization.

Full Information

First Posted
September 1, 2012
Last Updated
August 23, 2017
Sponsor
SI-BONE, Inc.
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01681004
Brief Title
Investigation of Sacroiliac Fusion Treatment (INSITE)
Acronym
INSITE
Official Title
INSITE Investigation of Sacroiliac Fusion Treatment
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
August 2017
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
September 2012 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
February 2015 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
June 2017 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
SI-BONE, Inc.

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes when patients with degenerative sacroiliitis (arthritis of the SI joint) and or sacroiliac disruption (abnormal separation or tearing of the sacroiliac joint)undergo either SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System or undergo specific, targeted non-surgical treatment of the SI joint.
Detailed Description
The intended analysis was to examine differences in responses at 6 months. It was acknowledged that subjects with chronic pain in the NSM arm group might not experience any benefit as there was little evidence at the time that NSM was helpful. The protocol included optional crossover to other treatments, including surgical treatment. The protocol anticipated a high crossover rate and therefore did not include any comparative analyses after month 6.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Degenerative Sacroiliitis, Sacroiliac Joint Disruption
Keywords
si joint, si joint pain, si joint injury, si joint treatment, si joint injections, si joint inflammation, si joint problems, si joint symptoms, hypermobile si joint, si joint arthritis, si joint pain treatment, inflamed si joint, si joint sclerosis, locked si joint, si joint injuries, si joint disease, si joint infection, sacroiliac joint pelvic pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis treatment

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
Parallel group randomized controlled trial
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
159 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
iFuse Implant System
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Surgical placement of iFuse implants in the affected SI joint
Arm Title
Non-Surgical Management
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Medications, SI joint injection, physical therapy and RF ablation of SI joint
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
iFuse Implant System
Intervention Description
Placement of iFuse implant system via surgery
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Non-surgical management
Intervention Description
Medications for pain, physical therapy, SI joint injection and RF ablation
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Subject Success
Description
Composite endpoint of reduction from baseline in VAS back pain score by at least 20 mm, lack of device-related serious adverse events, absence of neurologic worsening and absence of surgical re-intervention. Note that the primary endpoint analysis is **intent to treat**, meaning that an outcome (success or failure) is assigned to all subjects randomized and treated. Subjects who withdrew early were deemed study failures.
Time Frame
6 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 1 Month
Description
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points, at post-operative & NSM visit after 1 month. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Improvement in Si Joint Pain VAS Score at 3 Months
Description
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points, at post-operative & NSM visits after 3 months. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
3 Months
Title
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 6 Months
Description
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points, at post-operative & NSM visits after 6 months. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
6 Months
Title
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 12 Months
Description
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points compared to baseline. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Time Frame
12 Months
Title
Improvement in SI Joint Pain VAS Score at 24 Months
Description
Improvement in SI joint pain VAS score of greater than or equal to 20 points compared to baseline. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) is a 100 mm line on which the subject indicates their level of pain. 0 = no pain. 100 = worst imaginable pain. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Time Frame
24 Months
Title
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Description
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points, at month 1. Oswestry Disability Index is a validated measure of disability related to low back pain. There are 10 sections, each with a score between 0-5. Scores are expressed on a percent basis without using the percent term. Scores range from 0 (no disability) to 100 (completely disabled). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Description
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points, at month 3. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
3 Months
Title
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Description
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points, at post-operative visits. 6 month visit. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
6 Months
Title
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Description
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points compared to baseline. Oswestry Disability Index is a validated measure of disability related to low back pain. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Time Frame
12 Months
Title
Improvement in Back Dysfunction
Description
Improvement in ODI score of greater than or equal to 15 points compared to baseline. Oswestry Disability Index is a validated measure of disability related to low back pain. Subjects in the NSM group who crossed over are considered failures for this endpoint by definition.
Time Frame
24 Months
Title
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at Post-operative Visits
Description
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at post-operative / NSM visits. The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient reported health questionnaire to measure quality of life across 8 domains. The PCS is the Physical Component Summary score. PCS is normed, so that "normal" scores are 50 +- 10. Higher scores indicate higher quality of life; lower scores indicate lower quality of life. SF-36 PCS (NBS, 2009 norms) ranges from 5 (minimum value, poor physical function) to 80 (maximum, excellent clinical function). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at Post-operative Visits
Description
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at post-operative / NSM visits. The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient reported health questionnaire to measure quality of life across 8 domains. The PCS is the Physical Component Summary score. PCS is normed, so that "normal" scores are 50 +- 10. Higher scores indicate higher quality of life; lower scores indicate lower quality of life. SF-36 PCS (NBS, 2009 norms) ranges from 5 (minimum value, poor physical function) to 80 (maximum, excellent clinical function). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
12 Months
Title
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at Post-operative Visits
Description
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by SF-36 PCS (Physical Component) at post-operative / NSM visits. The Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient reported health questionnaire to measure quality of life across 8 domains. The PCS is the Physical Component Summary score. PCS is normed, so that "normal" scores are 50 +- 10. Higher scores indicate higher quality of life; lower scores indicate lower quality of life. SF-36 PCS (NBS, 2009 norms) ranges from 5 (minimum value, poor physical function) to 80 (maximum, excellent clinical function). Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at Post-operative Visits
Description
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at post-operative visits. EQ-5D is a five-question broad quality of life measure that can be combined into a single index and represents the time trade-off (TTO) utility of current health. A score of 0 would = worst imaginable health, while a score of 1.0 would be best imaginable health. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
6 months
Title
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at Post-operative Visits
Description
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at post-operative visits. EQ-5D is a five-question broad quality of life measure that can be combined into a single index and represents the time trade-off (TTO) utility of current health. A score of 0 would = worst imaginable health, while a score of 1.0 would be best imaginable health. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
12 Months
Title
Improvement in Quality of Life (QOL) as Measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at Post-operative Visits
Description
Improvement in quality of life (QOL) as measured by EQ-5D (EuroQol-5D) at post-operative visits. EQ-5D is a five-question broad quality of life measure that can be combined into a single index and represents the time trade-off (TTO) utility of current health. A score of 0 would = worst imaginable health, while a score of 1.0 would be best imaginable health. Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Ambulatory Status
Description
Time to full ambulation among those without full ambulation at baseline. 60 days was the median of time to full ambulation for the iFuse implant System arm.
Time Frame
24 months (surgical group), 6 months (non-surgical group)
Title
Work Status
Description
Proportion of non-working (due to back pain or other reasons) subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
1 month
Title
Work Status
Description
Non-working subjects (due to back pain or other reasons) who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
3 Months
Title
Work Status
Description
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
6 Months
Title
Work Status
Description
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
12 Months
Title
Work Status
Description
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
18 Months
Title
Work Status
Description
Non-working subjects who return to work Note that secondary endpoint analysis is based on available data only. No imputation of missing scores was prespecified in the protocol.
Time Frame
24 Months
Title
Number of Participants With Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
Description
Any event meeting ISO 14155 definition for serious adverse event at following time points: during procedure (if randomized to iFuse), hospital discharge (if iFuse, typically 1-2 days), and 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after randomization.
Time Frame
Procedure, discharge, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
21 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
70 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Age 21-70 at time of screening Patient has lower back pain for >6 months inadequately responsive to conservative care Diagnosis of sacroiliac joint disruption or degenerative sacroiliitis based on ALL of the following: Patient has pain at or close to the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) with possible radiation into buttocks, posterior thigh or groin and can point with a single finger to the location of pain (Fortin Finger Test), and Patient has at least 3 of 5 physical examination maneuvers specific for the SI joint (see Table 3), and Patient has improvement in lower back pain numeric rating scale (NRS) of at least 50% after injection of local anesthetic into affected SI joint(s) (see Section 3.6.4), and One or more of the following: i. SI joint disruption: Asymmetric SI joint widening on X-ray or CT scan, or Leakage of contrast on diagnostic arthrography ii. Degenerative sacroiliitis: Radiographic evidence of SI joint degeneration, including sclerosis, osteophytes, subchondral cysts, or vacuum phenomenon on CT or plain film, or Due to prior lumbosacral spine fusion Baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score of at least 30% Baseline SI joint pain score of at least 50 on 0-100 mm visual analog scale* Patient has signed study-specific informed consent form Patient has the necessary mental capacity to participate and is physically able to comply with study protocol requirements Exclusion Criteria: Severe back pain due to other causes, such as lumbar disc degeneration, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spondylolisthesis, lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar facet degeneration, and lumbar vertebral body fracture** Other known sacroiliac pathology such as: Sacral dysplasia Inflammatory sacroiliitis (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis or other HLA-associated spondyloarthropathy) Tumor Infection Acute fracture Crystal arthropathy History of recent (<1 year) major trauma to pelvis Previously diagnosed osteoporosis (defined as prior T-score <-2.5 or history of osteoporotic fracture). Patients meeting the osteoporosis screening criteria identified by the National Osteoporosis Foundation should be screened for osteoporosis with DEXA.**** See Section 3.6.4. Osteomalacia or other metabolic bone disease Chronic rheumatologic condition (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis) Any condition or anatomy that makes treatment with the iFuse Implant System infeasible Chondropathy Known allergy to titanium or titanium alloys Use of medications known to have detrimental effects on bone quality and soft-tissue healing Prominent neurologic condition that would interfere with physical therapy Current local or systemic infection that raises the risk of surgery Patient currently receiving or seeking worker's compensation, disability remuneration, and/or involved in injury litigation. Currently pregnant or planning pregnancy in the next 2 years Patient is a prisoner or a ward of the state. Known or suspected drug or alcohol abuse*** Diagnosed psychiatric disease (e.g., schizophrenia, major depression, personality disorders) that could interfere with study participation Patient is participating in an investigational study or has been involved in an investigational study within 3 months prior to evaluation for participation
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Daniel J Cher, MD
Organizational Affiliation
SI-BONE
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University of California, San Diego
City
La Jolla
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92093
Country
United States
Facility Name
BASIC Spine
City
Newport Beach
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92660
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences
City
Denver
State/Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80045
Country
United States
Facility Name
Yale University School of Medicine
City
New Haven
State/Province
Connecticut
ZIP/Postal Code
06510
Country
United States
Facility Name
Orthopaedic Clinic of Daytona Beach
City
Daytona Beach
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32117
Country
United States
Facility Name
Brain and Spine Center, LLC
City
Panama City
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32405
Country
United States
Facility Name
Resurgen's Orthopaedics
City
McDonough
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
30253
Country
United States
Facility Name
Neurosurgery Consultants/ Riverside Hospital
City
Kankakee
State/Province
Illinois
ZIP/Postal Code
60901
Country
United States
Facility Name
Orthopaedic Center of Southern Illinois
City
Mount Vernon
State/Province
Illinois
ZIP/Postal Code
62864
Country
United States
Facility Name
Community Neurosurgery Hospital
City
Indianapolis
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46219
Country
United States
Facility Name
Bluegrass Orthopaedics & Hand Care Research
City
Lexington
State/Province
Kentucky
ZIP/Postal Code
40509
Country
United States
Facility Name
Spine institute of Louisiana
City
Shreveport
State/Province
Louisiana
ZIP/Postal Code
71101
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Minnesota
City
Minneapolis
State/Province
Minnesota
ZIP/Postal Code
55455
Country
United States
Facility Name
HCA Midwest
City
Kansas City
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
64132
Country
United States
Facility Name
NeuroSpine Institute, LLC
City
Eugene
State/Province
Oregon
ZIP/Postal Code
97401
Country
United States
Facility Name
Allegheny General Hospital
City
Pittsburgh
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
15212
Country
United States
Facility Name
Medical University of South Carolina
City
Charleston
State/Province
South Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
29425
Country
United States
Facility Name
Midwest Orthopedic Specialty Hospital
City
Franklin
State/Province
Wisconsin
ZIP/Postal Code
53132
Country
United States
Facility Name
Aurora Bay Care Medical Center
City
Green Bay
State/Province
Wisconsin
ZIP/Postal Code
54311
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Undecided
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
27652199
Citation
Polly DW, Swofford J, Whang PG, Frank CJ, Glaser JA, Limoni RP, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Sembrano JN; INSITE Study Group. Two-Year Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs. Non-Surgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction. Int J Spine Surg. 2016 Aug 23;10:28. doi: 10.14444/3028. eCollection 2016.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
26913224
Citation
Polly D, Cher D, Whang PG, Frank C, Sembrano J; INSITE Study Group. Does Level of Response to SI Joint Block Predict Response to SI Joint Fusion? Int J Spine Surg. 2016 Jan 21;10:4. doi: 10.14444/3004. eCollection 2016.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
26719717
Citation
Cher DJ, Frasco MA, Arnold RJ, Polly DW. Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Dec 18;8:1-14. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S94266. eCollection 2016. Erratum In: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:305.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
26291338
Citation
Polly DW, Cher DJ, Wine KD, Whang PG, Frank CJ, Harvey CF, Lockstadt H, Glaser JA, Limoni RP, Sembrano JN; INSITE Study Group. Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs Nonsurgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: 12-Month Outcomes. Neurosurgery. 2015 Nov;77(5):674-90; discussion 690-1. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000988.
Results Reference
result
PubMed Identifier
25785242
Citation
Whang P, Cher D, Polly D, Frank C, Lockstadt H, Glaser J, Limoni R, Sembrano J. Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs. Non-Surgical Management: Six-Month Outcomes from a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Spine Surg. 2015 Mar 5;9:6. doi: 10.14444/2006. eCollection 2015.
Results Reference
result
Available IPD and Supporting Information:
Available IPD/Information Type
Individual Participant Data Set
Available IPD/Information URL
http://yoda.yale.edu/
Available IPD/Information Identifier
INSITE

Learn more about this trial

Investigation of Sacroiliac Fusion Treatment (INSITE)

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs