ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021
Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Guideline
- 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
- American Society of Pain and Neuroscience Best Practice (ASPN) Guideline for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Disorders.Journal of pain research · 2024Review
- Minimally Invasive SI Joint Fusion Procedures for Chronic SI Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy.International journal of spine surgery · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo report patient-reported outcomes of minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion as a case series.
methodsThis study was a retrospective cohort study of patients 18 years of age and older who underwent a minimally invasive SI joint fusion by a single surgeon between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. Routine demographic data, characteristics, and relevant surgical and clinical data were all collected for this group. In addition, patients completed preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires to assess outcomes. Patient selection for SI fusion was based on short-term resolution of symptoms (80% or greater relief) with an image-guided intra-articular injection of local anesthetic. Routine statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Fisher's exact test, or χ
resultsThis study included 19 patients comprising 24 SI fusions, with a mean follow-up of 58 months. The average patient age was 50 years and the average surgical blood loss was 25 cc. Men comprised 79% of the cohort. The VAS score improved from 7 to 3 (P = 0.0001). SF-36 physical function, role limitations due to physical health, and role limitations due to emotional health improved to a statistically significant extent. General health was not significantly changed. Every patient showed improvement in their SF-36 physical function scores (mean 40 preoperatively to 55 at final follow up) and 18 of 19 showed improvement in the VAS score (mean 7 preoperatively to 3 at final follow-up).
conclusionIn appropriately selected patients, minimally invasive SI joint fusion results in decreased pain and improved physical functioning of patients, which is sustained for more than 4 years post-procedure.
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.