ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
The effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared to sham operation: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03507049 (Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Versus Sham Operation for Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain. A Prosepctive Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Versus Sham Operation for Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Pain. A Prosepctive Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Consensus practice guidelines on sacroiliac joint complex pain from a multispecialty, international working group.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2025Guideline
- Minimally invasive lateral, posterior, and posterolateral sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing genuine and sham surgery for sacroiliac joint pain using self-assessments, pain testing, and neuroimaging.Pain reports · 2025Article
- Review
- A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis of a Novel Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Device on Safety and Efficacy at 12 Months: Access Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Concerns regarding sham-controlled trial of SI joint fusion procedure.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Possible factors influencing on the effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion - a call for further research and discussion.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Contrasting results in sacroiliac joint fusion studies: the role of bilateral complaints.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Reply to Letter: Identifying effective candidates for sacro-iliac joint fusion.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Identifying effective candidates for sacro-iliac joint fusion.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Patient-reported outcomes after minimally invasive sacro-iliac joint surgery: a cohort study based on the Swedish Spine Registry.Acta orthopaedica · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac joint as treatment for low back pain may reduce pain and improve function compared to non-operative treatment, although clear evidence is lacking. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effect of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion compared to sham surgery on sacroiliac joint pain reduction. Methods: In this double-blind randomized sham surgery-controlled trial patients with clinical diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain confirmed with sacroiliac joint injection were included at two university hospitals in Sweden and Norway. Patients were randomized by the operating surgeon at each site to minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion or sham surgery. The primary endpoint was group difference in sacroiliac joint pain on the operated side at six months postoperatively, measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Un-blinding and primary analysis were performed when all patients had completed six months follow-up. The trial is closed for new participants and was registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03507049. Findings: Between September 1st, 2018 and October 22nd, 2021, 63 patients were randomized, 32 to the surgical group, 31 to the sham group. Mean age was 45 years (range 26-63) and 59 of 63 (94%) patients were female. The mean reduction in the operated sacroiliac joint from baseline to six months postoperative was 2.6 Numeric Rating Scale points in the surgical group and 1.7 points in the sham group (mean between groups difference -1.0 points; 95% CI, -2.2 to 0.3; p = 0.13). Interpretation: This double-blind randomized controlled trial could not prove that minimally invasive fusion of the sacroiliac joint was superior to sham surgery at six months postoperative. Funding: Sophies Minde Ortopedi supported a clinical research position for Engelke Marie Randers. Region Stockholm supported the cost for the Swedish ethical application and a clinical research appointment for Paul Gerdhem.
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.