Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27334321›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2016

Cement Augmentation in Sacroiliac Screw Fixation Offers Modest Biomechanical Advantages in a Cadaver Model.

Georg Osterhoff, Andrew E Dodd, Florence Unno, Angus Wong, Shahram Amiri, Kelly A Lefaivre, Pierre Guy

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Finite element validation and short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted percutaneous microwave ablation plus cement augmentation and sacroiliac screw fixation for upper sacral (S1-S2) metastases.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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparison of elastic stable intramedullary nailing versus retrograde screw fixation for pubic ramus fractures-a biomechanical study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Compressive effect and collapse behavior of three different transsacral implants in sacral fragility fractures - a retrospective analysis of 106 cases.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. The ideal site of cement application in cement augmented sacroiliac screw fixation: the biomechanical perspective.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Antegrade versus retrograde screw fixation of anterior column acetabular fractures: a biomechanical in vitro study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Georg OsterhoffDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. georg.osterhoff@usz.ch.
Andrew E DoddDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Florence UnnoDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Angus WongDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Shahram AmiriDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Kelly A LefaivreDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.
Pierre GuyDivision of Orthopaedic Trauma, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, 3114-910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSacroiliac screw fixation in elderly patients with pelvic fractures is prone to failure owing to impaired bone quality. Cement augmentation has been proposed as a possible solution, because in other anatomic areas this has been shown to reduce screw loosening. However, to our knowledge, this has not been evaluated for sacroiliac screws. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We investigated the potential biomechanical benefit of cement augmentation of sacroiliac screw fixation in a cadaver model of osteoporotic bone, specifically with respect to screw loosening, construct survival, and fracture-site motion.

methodsStandardized complete sacral ala fractures with intact posterior ligaments in combination with ipsilateral upper and lower pubic rami fractures were created in osteoporotic cadaver pelves and stabilized by three fixation techniques: sacroiliac (n = 5) with sacroiliac screws in S1 and S2, cemented (n = 5) with addition of cement augmentation, and transsacral (n = 5) with a single transsacral screw in S1. A cyclic loading protocol was applied with torque (1.5 Nm) and increasing axial force (250-750 N). Screw loosening, construct survival, and sacral fracture-site motion were measured by optoelectric motion tracking. A sample-size calculation revealed five samples per group to be required to achieve a power of 0.80 to detect 50% reduction in screw loosening.

resultsScrew motion in relation to the sacrum during loading with 250 N/1.5 Nm was not different among the three groups (sacroiliac: 1.2 mm, range, 0.6-1.9; cemented: 0.7 mm, range, 0.5-1.3; transsacral: 1.1 mm, range, 0.6-2.3) (p = 0.940). Screw subsidence was less in the cemented group (3.0 mm, range, 1.2-3.7) compared with the sacroiliac (5.7 mm, range, 4.7-10.4) or transsacral group (5.6 mm, range, 3.8-10.5) (p = 0.031). There was no difference with the numbers available in the median number of cycles needed until failure; this was 2921 cycles (range, 2586-5450) in the cemented group, 2570 cycles (range, 2500-5107) for the sacroiliac specimens, and 2578 cycles (range, 2540-2623) in the transsacral group (p = 0.153). The cemented group absorbed more energy before failure (8.2 × 10

conclusionsThe addition of cement to standard sacroiliac screw fixation seemed to change the mode and dynamics of failure in this cadaveric mechanical model. Although no advantages to cement were observed in terms of screw motion or cycles to failure among the different constructs, a cemented, two-screw sacroiliac screw construct resulted in less screw subsidence and greater energy absorbed to failure than an uncemented single transsacral screw. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In osteoporotic bone, the addition of cement to sacroiliac screw fixation might improve screw anchorage. However, larger mechanical studies using these findings as pilot data should be performed before applying these preliminary findings clinically.

Indexed as

Bone CementsBone ScrewsAgedAged, 80 and overBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverFracture Fixation, InternalHumansIliumOsteoporotic FracturesProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailurePubic BoneSacrumSpinal FracturesStress, MechanicalBone Cements

Identifiers

PMID27334321
PMCPMC5052190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.