ArticleBrain & spine2025
Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF) is indicated in patients with chronic Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain or instability and is usually performed using minimally invasive techniques through lateral or posterior approach. Research question: Our study aims to compare the lateral approach to the posterior one in SIJF through meta-analysis of other studies. The outcome of each approach is measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), or both. Materials and methods: The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Articles were extracted using Pubmed advance search till February 27th, 2023. Articles included were those limited to either lateral, posterior or both approaches. Articles written in a non-English language, case reports and smaller-than-three case series were excluded from the study. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scales. Stata-17 software program was used for statistical analysis and creation of forest plots. Results: Forty-eight articles were available for the quantitative analysis, which represents a total of 2562 subjects. The average duration of postoperative follow-up was 21 months (3-72 months) and 17 months (6-72 months) for the VAS and ODI outcomes, respectively. The average percentage of improvement in the VAS was 57% (22-80%) in the lateral approach versus 58% (29-94%) in the posterior approach (p = 0.986). The average percentage of improvement in the ODI was 42% (11-75%) in the lateral approach versus 31% (11-65%) in the posterior one (p = 0.272). A trend towards performing posterior approaches more frequently was noted in studies published after 2017. Discussion and conclusion: Approach selection for SIJF depends mainly on patient's characteristics and surgeon's experience. Our study demonstrated no difference in VAS outcome between lateral and posterior approach. Lateral approach appeared to be superior in ODI outcome although not statistically significant. The main limitation of the study is the selection-bias as the majority of articles included were observational. Therefore, randomized procedural trials are needed to validate these findings.
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.