ArticleGlobal spine journal2022
Biomechanical Stability of Primary and Revision Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Devices: A Cadaveric Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative 3D-Planned S1 Corridors Transferred into 2D Fluoroscopy Allow for Safe Intraoperative Large-Diameter Implant Placement: Description of a Novel Sacroiliac Fixation Technique and Proof of Concept in 137 Implantations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Effect of revision sacroiliac joint fusion on unresolved pain and disability: a retrospective cohort study.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 · 2024Article
- Comparison of a Novel Posterior Integrated Transfixation Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Approach to the Posterolateral and Lateral Approaches: A Cadaveric Biomechanical and Computational Analysis of the Fixation, Invasiveness, and Fusion Area.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designAn in vitro biomechanics study.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of triangular titanium implants in providing mechanical stabilization to a sacroiliac joint with primary and revision sized implants.
methodsTen lumbopelvic cadaveric specimens were tested in 4 stages: intact, pubic symphysis sectioned, primary, and simulated revision. Primary treatment was performed using 3 laterally placed triangular titanium implants. To simulate revision conditions before and after bone ingrowth and ongrowth on the implants, 7.5-mm and 10.75-mm implants were randomly assigned to one side of each specimen during the simulated revision stage. A 6 degrees of freedom spinal loading frame was used to load specimens in 4 directions: flexion extension, lateral bending, axial torsion, and axial compression. Biomechanical evaluation was based on measures of sacroiliac joint rotational and translational motion.
resultsBoth primary and revision implants showed the ability to reduce translational motion to a level significantly lower than the intact condition when loaded in axial compression. Simulated revision conditions showed no statistically significant differences compared with the primary implant condition, with the exception of flexion-extension range of motion where motions associated with the revised condition were significantly lower. Comparison of rotational and translation motions associated with the 7.5- and 10.75-mm implants showed no significant differences between the treatment conditions.
conclusionsThese results indicate that implantation of laterally placed triangular titanium implants significantly reduces the motion of a sacroiliac joint using either the primary and revision sized implants. No statistically significant differences were detected when comparing the efficacy of primary, 7.5-mm revision, or 10.75-mm revision implants.
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.