Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24940087›Full record

ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2014

Comparative effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion.

Charles Gt Ledonio, David W Polly, Marc F Swiontkowski, John T Cummings

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2017
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Bedrock technique with triangular titanium rods for spinopelvic fixation and sacroiliac joint fusion: is there a learning curve?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Impact of diagnosis and type of sacroiliac joint fusion on postoperative complications.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 · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: The Current Evidence.International journal of spine surgery · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Charles Gt LedonioDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA.
David W PollyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA.
Marc F SwiontkowskiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA.
John T CummingsCommunity Neurosurgical Care, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe mainstay of sacroiliac joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis therapy has been nonoperative management. This nonoperative management often includes a regimen of physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, therapeutic injections, and possibly radiofrequency ablation at the discretion of the treating physician. When these clinical treatments fail, sacroiliac joint fusion has been recommended as the standard treatment. Open and minimally invasive (MIS) surgical techniques are typical procedures. This study aims to compare the perioperative measures and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) outcomes associated with each of these techniques.

methodsA comparative retrospective chart review of patients with sacroiliac joint fusion and a minimum of 1 year of follow-up was performed. Perioperative measures and ODI scores were compared using the Fisher's exact test and two nonparametric tests, ie, the Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results are presented as percent or median with range, as appropriate.

resultsForty-nine patients from two institutions underwent sacroiliac joint fusion between 2006 and 2012. Ten patients were excluded because of incomplete data, leaving 39 evaluable patients, of whom 22 underwent open and 17 underwent MIS sacroiliac joint fusion. The MIS group was significantly older (median age 66 [39-82] years) than the open group (median age 51 [34-74] years). Surgical time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIS group than in the open group. Preoperative ODI was significantly greater in the open group (median 64 [44-78]) than in the MIS group (median 53 [14-84]). Postoperative improvement in ODI was statistically significant within and between groups, with MIS resulting in greater improvement.

conclusionThe open and MIS sacroiliac joint fusion techniques resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvement for patients with degenerative sacroiliitis refractory to nonoperative management. However, the number of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference and those showing overall improvement were greater in the MIS group.

Indexed as

arthrodesisdegenerative sacroiliitissacroiliac jointsacroiliac joint disruption

Identifiers

PMID24940087
PMCPMC4051734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.