ArticleNeurospine2025
Fixation of the Sacroiliac Joint: A Cadaver-Based Concurrent-Controlled Biomechanical Comparison of Posterior Interposition and Posterolateral Transosseous Techniques.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sacroiliac joint fixation with a posterior intra-articular implant versus a posterolateral transiliac implant: A biomechanical comparison.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis of a Novel Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Device on Safety and Efficacy at 12 Months: Access Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur study aimed to compare the posterior interposition technique against the posterolateral transosseous technique in the same cadaver specimens.
methodsComputer and cadaver models of 2 fixation techniques were developed. The computer model was constructed to analyze bone volume removed during implant placement and the bony surface area available for fusion. The cadaver model included quasi-static multidirectional bending flexibility and dynamic fatigue loading. Relative motions between the sacrum and ilium were measured intact, after joint destabilization, after fixation with direct-posterior and posterolateral techniques, and after 18,500 cycles of fatigue loading. Relative positions between each implant and the sacrum and ilium were measured after fixation and fatigue loading to ascertain the quality of the bone-implant interface. The 2 techniques were randomized to the left and right sacroiliac joints of the same cadavers.
resultsThe posterior interposition technique removed less bone volume and facilitated a larger surface area available for bony fusion. Posterior interposition significantly reduced the nutation/counternutation motion of the sacroiliac joint (42% ± 8%) and reduced it more than the posterolateral transosseous technique (14% ± 4%). Upon fatigue loading, the posterior interposition implant maintained the bone-implant interface across all specimens, while the posterolateral transosseous implant migrated or subsided in 20%-50% of specimens.
conclusionPosterior interposition fixation of the sacroiliac joint reduces joint motion. The amount of fixation from the posterior technique is superior and more durable than the amount of fixation achieved by the posterolateral technique.
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.