Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39890424›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025

Spinopelvic Fixation Using an Osseointegrative Implant: Analysis of Postmarket Surveillance to Determine the Failure Rate.

Robert K Eastlack, Richard P Menger, Jay D Turner, Kara R Ashcraft, W Carlton Recking, Christopher J Kleck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Stabilization of L5 pedicle Subtraction osteotomies (PSO) with ≥ 6-rods and bilateral dual pelvic fixation with osseointegrative implants: surgical technique description and early postoperative outcomes.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
    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

6 authors.

Robert K EastlackDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Scripps Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Richard P MengerDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Southern Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA.
Jay D TurnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Kara R AshcraftClinical Affairs, SI-BONE, Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA kara.ashcraft@si-bone.com.
W Carlton ReckingMedical Affairs, SI-BONE, Inc, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Christopher J KleckDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdult spinal deformities, affecting up to 60% of individuals older than 60 years, often require long segment fusions. Constructs spanning the lumbosacral junction commonly include pelvic fixation. Despite robust pelvic fixation, distal junctional failure, such as pseudoarthrosis, bone fracture, and instrumentation failure, occurs in 24%-34% of these cases. A novel implant designed for both durable pelvic fixation and sacroiliac joint fusion was recently cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration. This implant is engineered to address some of the pelvic fixation failure mechanisms by reducing motion at the lumbosacral junction and sacroiliac joint while decreasing stress on S1 pedicle screws and S2AI implants.

objectiveTo determine the failure rate of a novel osseointegrative implant for spinopelvic fixation/fusion. STUDY

designAnalysis of manufacturer postmarket surveillance database.

methodsA postmarket surveillance database was analyzed to determine the type and rate of complaints and revisions of a novel osseointegrative implant. These were then compared with the published literature.

resultsA total of 15,628 implants were identified in 6907 patients. The postmarket surveillance of the novel screw fusion device revealed a low complaint rate of 0.75% and no postoperative implant breakage. Revision procedures were mostly due to set screw dissociation (0.4%) and implant loosening (0.15%), which was primarily linked to pre-existing conditions or infection. The mean (SD) time from index procedure to the complaint was 7.1 (5.4) months.

conclusionsCompared with published literature, this novel osseointegrative implant demonstrates a significantly lower incidence of set screw dissociation than traditional pelvic screws with no incidence of breakage or back out, underscoring its durable integration with bone, with low rates of revisions and mechanical failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A novel osseointegrative implant offers reduced rates of mechanical failures and revisions, helping to reduce complications in pelvic fixation procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:

Indexed as

adult spinal deformitypelvic fixationsacroiliac jointspinal fusion

Identifiers

PMID39890424
PMCPMC12268591

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.