Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38193936›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024

Effect of revision sacroiliac joint fusion on unresolved pain and disability: a retrospective cohort study.

Levi Brown, Marc Swiontkowski, Kari Odland, David W Polly, Jason Haselhuhn

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Utility of minimally invasive percutaneous arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint for the treatment of low back pain: systematic review of the literature.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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Levi BrownThe Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2512 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2200-0231
Marc SwiontkowskiThe Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2512 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7036-1782
Kari OdlandThe Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2512 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA. kodland@umn.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1244-2685
David W PollyThe Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2512 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7572-6584
Jason HaselhuhnThe Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2512 Riverside Avenue South, Suite R200, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8658-8137
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe sacroiliac (SI) joint is recognized as a source of low back pain in 15-30% of patients. Though randomized controlled trials have shown clinical improvement following SI joint fusion in 83.1% of patients, revision rates of 2.9% within 2 years have been reported. There is a paucity of literature reviewing this small yet significant population of patients requiring revision surgery.

methodsFollowing IRB approval, retrospective review of patients, who underwent a revision SI joint fusion from 2009 to 2021 was completed. Patient-reported outcomes were measured before and at each clinic visit after surgery with visual analoge scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient characteristics (chronic opiate use and prior lumbar fusion) and surgical factors (operative approach, type/number of implants and use of bone graft) were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with Paired t and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression determined if patients met the minimally clinical important differences (MCID) for VAS-back pain and ODI scores at 1 year.

resultsFifty-two patients (77% female) with an average age of 49.1 (SD ± 11.1) years met inclusion criteria. Forty-four had single sided revisions and eight bilateral revisions. At 1 year follow-up there was no significant improvement in VAS-Back (p = 0.06) or ODI (p = 0.06). Patients with chronic opioid use were 8.5 times less likely to achieve the MDC for ODI scores (OR 0.118, p = 0.029). There was no difference in outcomes when comparing the different surgical approaches (p = 0.41).

conclusionOur study demonstrates patients undergoing revision surgery have moderate improvement in low back pain, however, few have complete resolution of their symptoms. Specific patient factors, such as chronic opiate use and female sex may decrease the expected improvement in patient-reported outcomes following surgery. Failure to obtain relief may be due to incorrect indications, lack of biologic fusion and/or presence of co-pathologies. Further clinical examination and consistent long-term follow-up, clarify the role revision surgery plays in long-term patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Low Back PainOpiate AlkaloidsSpinal DiseasesArthrodesisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSacroiliac JointOpiate AlkaloidsDisabilityPainRevision surgerySI fusionSI joint

Identifiers

PMID38193936
OpenAlexW4390728645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.