ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2014
Minimally invasive versus open sacroiliac joint fusion: are they similarly safe and effective?
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Guideline
- Management of sacroiliac joint pain: current concepts.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- Utility of minimally invasive percutaneous arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint for the treatment of low back pain: systematic review of the literature.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Pooled it
- Minimally invasive lateral, posterior, and posterolateral sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Pooled it
- Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular titanium implants versus nonsurgical management for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgiePooled it
- Randomized Trial of Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis Compared with Conservative Management for Chronic Low Back Pain Attributed to the Sacroiliac Joint.The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2019Trial
- Six-month outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of minimally invasive SI joint fusion with triangular titanium implants vs conservative management.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017Trial
- Novel approach to sacroiliac joint pain: Preliminary cadaveric and in-silico analysis of safety and feasibility of X-ray-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Fluoroscopy-assisted single cannulated screw placement for stabilisation of bilateral sacroiliac joint luxation in six cats: technique and outcome.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion evidence gaps with biomechanics, devices, and industry influence: A narrative review.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive computer-assisted repair of feline sacroiliac luxation-a cadaveric study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Outcomes: Results from SECURE: A Single Arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Allograft Implant.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion: current insights and a comprehensive literature review.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2024Review
- A New Approach to the Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain and First Patient-Reported Outcomes Using a Novel Arthrodesis Technique for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a New Treatment Strategy for Geriatric Fragility Fractures of the Posterior Pelvic Ring Using Sensor-Supported Insoles: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Posterior intra-articular fixation stabilizes both primary and secondary sacroiliac joints: a cadaveric study and comparison to lateral trans-articular fixation literature.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes After Revision Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Ethnic Differences in Western and Asian Sacroiliac Joint Anatomy for Surgical Planning of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of chronic low back pain in 15% to 30% of patients. When nonsurgical approaches fail, sacroiliac joint fusion may be recommended. Advances in intraoperative image guidance have assisted minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques using ingrowth-coated fusion rods; however, how these techniques perform relative to open anterior fusion of the sacroiliac joint using plates and screws is not known. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between patients undergoing MIS and open sacroiliac joint fusion.
methodsWe retrospectively studied 63 patients (open: 36; MIS: 27) who underwent sacroiliac joint fusion with minimum 1-year followup at our institution from 2006 to 2011. Of those, 10 in the open group had incomplete records. All patients had sacroiliac joint dysfunction confirmed by image-guided intraarticular anesthetic sacroiliac joint injection and had failed nonoperative treatment. Patients were matched via propensity score, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, history of spine fusion, and preoperative ODI scores, leaving 22 in each group. Nine patients were not matched. We reviewed patient medical records to obtain EBL, length of surgery, LOS, and pre- and postoperative ODI scores. Mean followup was 13 months (range, 11-33 months) in the open group and 15 months (range, 12-26 months) in the MIS group.
resultsPatients in the open group had a higher mean EBL (681 mL versus 41 mL, p < 0.001). Mean surgical time and LOS were shorter in the MIS group than in the open group (68 minutes versus 128 minutes and 3.3 days versus 2 days, p < 0.001 for both). With the numbers available, mean postoperative ODI scores were not different between groups (47% versus 54%, p = 0.272).
conclusionsEBL, surgery time, and LOS favored the MIS sacroiliac fusion group. With the numbers available, ODI scores were similar between groups, though the study size was relatively small and it is possible that the study was underpowered on this end point. Because the implants used for these procedures make assessment of fusion challenging with available imaging techniques, we do not know how many patients' sacroiliac joints successfully fused, so longer followup and critical evaluation of outcomes scores over time are called for. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.