ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021
S2-alar-iliac screw and S1 pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of non-osteoporotic sacral fractures: a finite element study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- TiRobot‑assisted versus conventional fluoroscopy-assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation for pelvic ring injuries: a meta‑analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Robot-assisted closed reduction and navigated fixation for pelvic ring injuries: a focused narrative review of a reduction-fixation-audit framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Finite element analysis of long SI screws in the treatment of vertically unstable bilateral sacral fractures.PloS one · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Effects of Multi-segment Fixation on Lumbar Spine and Sacroiliac Joints: A Finite Element Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Implantation of S1AIS has priority as a sacroiliac joint fixation technique.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
- Surgical strategy of lumbopelvic instrumentation in the treatment of lumbosacral tuberculosis: S2-alar-iliac screws vs iliac screws.International wound journal · 2022Article
- Effect of Minimally Invasive Internal Arch Nailing Surgery on Tissue Traumatic Stress Response in Patients with Vertebral Fractures.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFive different sacral fracture fixation methods were compared using finite element (FE) analysis to study their biomechanical characteristics.
methodsDenis type I sacral fractures were created by FE modeling. Five different fixation methods for the posterior pelvic ring were simulated: sacroiliac screw (SIS), lumbopelvic fixation (LPF), transiliac internal fixator (TIFI), S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screw and S1 pedicle screw fixation (S2AI-S1) and S2AI screw and contralateral S1 pedicle screw fixation (S2AI-CS1). Four different loading methods were implemented in sequence to simulate the force in standing, flexion, right bending and left twisting, respectively. Vertical stiffness, relative displacement and change in relative displacement were recorded and analyzed.
resultsAs predicted by the FE model, the vertical stiffness of the five groups in descending order was S2AI-S1, SIS, S2AI-CS1, LPF and TIFI. In terms of relative displacement, groups S2AI-S1 and S2AI-CS1 displayed a lower mean relative displacement, although group S2AI-CS1 exhibited greater displacement in the upper sacrum than group S2AI-S1. Group SIS displayed a moderate mean relative displacement, although the displacement of the upper sacrum was smaller than the corresponding displacement in group S2AI-CS1, while groups LPF and TIFI displayed larger mean relative displacements. Finally, in terms of change in relative displacement, groups TIFI and LPF displayed the greatest fluctuations in their motion, while groups SIS, S2AI-S1 and S2AI-CS1 displayed smaller fluctuations.
conclusionCompared with SIS, unilateral LPF and TIFI, group S2AI-S1 displayed the greatest biomechanical stability of the Denis type I sacral fracture FE models. When the S1 pedicle screw insertion point on the affected side is damaged, S2AI-CS1 can be used as an appropriate alternative to S2AI-S1.
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.