ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Comparative efficacy of S2-alar-iliac versus iliac screw techniques in treating adult spinal deformity: a meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and complications.
Article in Asian spine journal, 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.
- Robotic-assisted percutaneous iliac fixation: Outcomes, history, and review.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic fixation has become increasingly important in treating spinal deformities that affect the lumbosacral junction. The sacral 2 alariliac screw (S2AI) and iliac screw (IS) fixations are two commonly used techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically compare the clinical outcomes of S2AI and IS techniques in adult spinal deformity. This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, using combinations of keywords such as "S2-alar-iliac," "iliac screw," "spinopelvic fixation," "lumbosacral surgery," and "clinical outcomes." The search was restricted to articles published up to October 2024. Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. The S2AI cohort showed significant advantages in terms of reduced estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD], -140.70; p=0.006), shorter hospital stays (MD, -1.50; p=0.01), and improved ambulatory status (MD, 0.22; p=0.004). Additionally, the S2AI group had significantly lower incidence of complications, including screw prominence (odds ratios [OR], 0.08; p=0.001), wound infection (OR, 0.24; p=0.0001), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.14; p=0.0001), and reduced need for revision surgeries (OR, 0.32; p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the S2AI and IS cohorts regarding the sagittal vertical axis (MD, 1.49; p=0.23), Visual Analog Scale pain scores (MD, 0.01; p=0.94), operation time (MD, -31.23; p=0.28), postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (MD, 0.14; p=0.84), implant failure (OR, 0.74; p=0.23), pelvic tilt (MD, -0.44; p=0.65), sacral slope (MD, -0.82; p=0.46), lumbar lordosis (MD, -0.19; p=0.89), or pelvic incidence (MD, -0.38; p=0.78). This meta-analysis suggests that while both S2AI and IS fixations have similar outcomes in terms of implant failure, operation time, and postoperative ODI, S2AI may have better outcomes in terms of revision, screw prominence, and wound complications.
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.