ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2022
Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rotational Stability in a Feline Sacroiliac Luxation Model: Biomechanical Comparison of Cannulated Compression Headless Screws and Cortical Screws Applied in Positional or Lag Fashion.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Interfragmentary compression in a feline sacroiliac luxation model: biomechanical comparison of cannulated compression headless screws and cortical screws applied in positional or lag fashion.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Effect of thread direction on rotational stability in lag-screw fixation of sacroiliac luxation: An ex vivo cadaveric study in small-breed dogs.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Article
- Mechanical evaluation of canine sacroiliac joint stabilization using two short screws.Veterinary surgery : VS · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility and mechanical stability of sacroiliac (SI) joint stabilization using 2 short 3.5 mm cortical screws, each spanning an average of 23% of the width of the sacral body. STUDY
designCadaveric experimental study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Twenty-four canine pelvis specimens.
methodsPelvis specimens were prepared by disarticulation of the left SI joint and osteotomy of the left pubis and left ischium, and stabilized using a single long lag screw (LLS), 2 short lag screws (SLS) or 2 short positional screws (SPS). Computed tomography (CT) imaging was used to determine standardized screw lengths for each group and was repeated following implant insertion. Specimens were secured within a servohydraulic test frame and loaded through the acetabulum to simulate weight bearing under displacement control at 4 mm/min for 20 mm total displacement. Group mechanical testing data were compared.
resultsPeak load, yield load, and stiffness were more than 2 times greater in both the SLS and SPS groups when compared with the LLS group. No mechanical difference was identified between the short-screw groups.
conclusionSacroiliac luxation fixation using 2 short screws created a stronger, stiffer construct when compared with fixation using a single lag screw spanning 60% of the width of the sacral body. No mechanical advantage was observed between short screws inserted in positional vs. lag fashion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Sacroiliac luxation fixation using 2 short screws creates a mechanically superior construct with a larger region of acceptable implant positioning and potentially reduced risk of iatrogenic injury compared with conventional fixation.
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.