Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35899066›Full record

ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Revision of Failed Sacroiliac Joint Posterior Interpositional Structural Allograft Stabilization with Lateral Porous Titanium Implants: A Multicenter Case Series.

Andy Kranenburg, Gabriel Garcia-Diaz, Judson H Cook, Michael Thambuswamy, Whitney James, David Stevens, Adam Bruggeman, Ying Chen, Robyn Capobianco, W Carlton Reckling and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andy KranenburgSouthern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, OR, USA.
Gabriel Garcia-DiazOrthoSpine Advance Health, Inc, Merced, CA, USA.
Judson H CookCentral Texas Brain and Spine, Austin, TX, USA.
Michael ThambuswamyOklahoma Spine & Brain Institute, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Whitney JamesJames Marco Health, Prescott, AZ, USA.
David StevensUtah Spine Specialists, Bountiful, UT, USA.
Adam BruggemanTexas Spine Care Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Ying ChenOrthoNeuro Inc, New Albany, OH, USA.
Robyn CapobiancoSI-BONE Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9889-2526
W Carlton RecklingSI-BONE Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Joel D SiegalKey Clinics LLC, Mayfield Heights, OH, USA.
SI-Bone (United States) · USMedford Radiology Group · USPrecision Spine (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Distraction arthrodesis (DA) and stabilization of the sacroiliac (SI) joint by placing standalone structural allograft (SA) into the joint from a posterior trajectory has recently been introduced as a surgical procedure for chronic SI joint pain refractory to non-operative care. Methods: Retrospective case series of patients with recurrent and/or persistent pain after placement of one or more interpositional/intraarticular standalone SAs between the ilium and sacrum using a posterior procedure to treat SI joint pain/dysfunction. Patients subsequently underwent surgical revision with porous titanium fusion implants using a lateral transfixing procedure. The demographic, clinical, and radiographic features of these cases are described. Results: Data were available for 37 patients. The average (SD) age was 57 (13) years, 62% were female, and the average BMI was 31 (5.4). On average, two SA implants were placed per joint; 46% of cases were bilateral. At follow-up, two common themes were identified: lucencies around the implants and suboptimal implant position. None of the cases showed radiographic fusion of the SI joint prior to revision. One patient had an inflammatory reaction to the SA. All patients presented for revision due to either continued (49%) or recurrence (51%) of pain. In one revision case, the SA was forced ventrally, resulting in a sacral fracture, which was treated conservatively without sequelae. Conclusions: The popularity of standalone SA for SI joint stabilization/fusion with a posterior procedure is increasing. This case series demonstrates that clinical failures from this procedure may require surgical revision. The proposed fusion strategy (DA) for these products is unproven in the SI joint, and, therefore, properly conducted prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up are important to establish the safety and efficacy of this approach. In the meantime, the placement of lateral titanium implants appears to be an effective revision strategy.

Indexed as

distraction arthrodesisligamentotaxissacroiliac jointsacroiliac joint fusionstructural allograft

Identifiers

PMID35899066
PMCPMC9309279
OpenAlexW4286257129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.