ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2023
Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes After Revision Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revision sacroiliac joint fusion: mid-term patient-reported outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Stereotactic navigation-assisted minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion in patients with prior pelvic instrumentation: a case series.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
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
backgroundSacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) has been established as an effective treatment for sacroiliac joint dysfunction. However, failure necessitating revision has been reported in up to 30% of cases. Little is known regarding outcomes of revision SIJF.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed all revision SIJF at a single academic center between 2017 and 2020. Revision surgery was performed using the principles of joint decortication, bone grafting, compression, and rigid internal fixation. Outcomes were assessed at 6 months and 1 year after surgery using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scale. Fusion was assessed using computed tomography at 12 months postoperatively.
resultsEighteen revision SIJFs in 13 patients were included. The mean age was 55.8 years (range 35-75). Mean body mass index was 27.9 (range 21.7-36.7). Sixty-two percent of the patients were women. The indications for revision were pseudarthrosis without fixation failure in 14 cases (77.8%), hardware failure (loosening) in 3 cases (16.7%), and continued pain after partial fusion in 1 case (5.6%). ODI and NPRS scores demonstrated significant statistical and clinical improvements at all timepoints. Mean (SD) ODI scores improved from 53.8 (19.9) preoperative to 37.5 (19.8) at 6 months and 32.9 (21.7) at 12 months. Improvement in ODI was found in 15 joints (83.3%), and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was achieved in 12 joints (66.7%). Mean (SD) NPRS scores improved from 6.5 (1.4) preoperative to 3.2 (2.8) at 6 months and 3.4 (2.6) at 12 months. Improvement in NPRS was also identified in 17 joints (94.4%), and 10 joints (55.6%) achieved MCID for NPRS. Mean (SD) SANE score was 72.0% (30.8) at 6 months and 70.0% (33.8) at 12 months. There were no radiographic lucencies, implant subsidence, or implant fractures at final follow-up. We identified an 88.9% fusion rate with definitive bridging bone across the sacroiliac joint.
conclusionUtilizing a principles-based technique of joint decortication, compression, and rigid internal fixation, revision SIJF showed an improvement in patient-reported outcomes as well as high rate of fusion at 12 months. The most common indications for revision SIJF are symptomatic pseudarthrosis and implant loosening. This is the largest series of revision SIJF to date. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.