ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2019
Harvest of Iliac Crest Autograft Not Associated With Localized Pain.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Iliac crest bone graft versus cell-based grafts to augment spinal fusion: 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Transforming spinal surgery with innovations in biologics and additive manufacturing.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Iliac Bone Harvesting Techniques for Bone Reconstruction. Comparative Study Between Tricortical Bone Harvesting vs Trapdoor Technique.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere exists a wide variety of bone grafts, substitutes, and extenders, which are utilized in spinal arthrodesis surgery. While iliac crest autograft is the traditional gold standard for use in spinal arthrodesis, there is considerable discrepancy in the literature regarding its associated complications. Primarily among these is the perception that the procedure is painful and has a high infection rate. The purpose of this study is to determine if patients experience more pain postoperatively on the iliac crest autograft donor side of the pelvis than the contralateral side.
methodsThis study was a retrospective chart analysis of prospectively collected data on 76 patients who underwent elective lumbar arthrodesis with iliac crest autograft performed by one surgeon. The patients filled out a pain diagram with a five-region visual analogue scale, including each iliac crest, at the preoperative and each postoperative visit. Patient-reported pain data at various time points was compared from donor and contralateral sides and analysis included trends over time. Additionally, complications were noted when they occurred. The surgical approach involved a midline skin incision in all patients with epifascial and subperiosteal dissection to the posterior superior iliac spine.
resultsThere were no significant differences in reported pain between donor and nondonor side. There was no significant main effect of side of measurement (
conclusionsIliac crest harvest and reconstruction utilizing this technique does not result in increased pain on the side of the harvest. This study supports a low morbidity rate for iliac crest autograft harvest as no complications were seen in this series. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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.