ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025
Trends in Lumbosacral-Pelvic Fixation Strategies.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiological analysis of congenital spinal deformities in patients associated with anorectal malformations: a cross-sectional study of 86 patients.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 · 2026Review
- Removal of spinopelvic S2 alar-iliac osseointegrative screws: a case report and surgical technique guide.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Critical Assessment of Evidence Quality of Meta-Analyses Comparing Sacral 2 Alar-Iliac Fixation with Iliac Screws for Adult Spinal Deformity: An Umbrella Review with Emphasis on Methodological Limitations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to better understand the current decision-making criteria and surgical strategies for pelvic fixation in spinal surgery.
methodsA 28-question survey was distributed to an international group of practicing spine surgeons. Questions included training, practice type, criteria for using pelvic fixation, and strategies for pelvic fixation, including the type and technique employed.
resultsOf the 56 responders, 32% were neurosurgeons, and 67% were affiliated with academic institutions. Factors that most influenced the use of pelvic fixation were 3-column osteotomy (3CO), high-grade spondylolisthesis, and L5 to S1 pseudarthrosis. Most report using a single point of pelvic fixation per side for the following: deformity 4+ levels without 3CO (55%) and spondylolisthesis grade 3 (59%). The upper instrumented vertebra threshold for pelvic fixation in degenerative pathology was L2 (70%) or L3 (16%). Most surgeons chose 2 points of fixation per side in the setting of 4 or more levels with 3CO (69%) and revision of at least 3 levels (68%). The predominant (77.6%) fixation preference was S2-alar-iliac screws. Surgeons report using navigation (70%), fluoroscopy (23%), free hand (21%), and robot-assisted (7%) for screw placement. The most common pelvic screw diameter and length were 8.5 mm and 90 mm, respectively. A 5% to 10% pelvic fixation revision rate was reported, primarily for instrumentation failure or pseudarthrosis.
conclusionThis survey-based study highlights factors influencing surgeons' decisions on pelvic instrumentation. While complex corrections or revisions often require robust fixation, variability arises in simpler cases, influenced by factors like age, obesity, and bone quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.