ArticleCureus2025
Sacroiliac Joint Fusion: A Comparison Between Robotic Guidance Fusion and Minimally Invasive Navigation Fusion.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Stereotactic navigation-assisted minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion in patients with prior pelvic instrumentation: a case series.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Impact of Navigation Assistance on Perioperative Outcomes in Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis: A Comparative Study.Cureus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction, a frequently underdiagnosed cause of low back pain, remains relatively understudied. Minimally invasive methods, including navigation and robotic technology, are gaining popularity due to their lower surgical risks. This study aimed to compare outcomes of navigation-assisted (NA) SIJ fusion and robotic-assisted (RA) SIJ fusion performed at our institution. Methods We retrospectively reviewed adult patients who underwent SIJ fusion between November 2022 and September 2024. Details of demographic data, operative details (OR time, screw placement accuracy), postoperative complications, and pain scores (preoperative, postoperative) were collected. Changes in pain scores and surgical metrics were compared between the NA and RA groups. Results Our study included 31 patients who underwent SIJ fusion during the study period: 19 with NA and 12 with RA. Both cohorts were comparable at baseline in age (p=0.416), BMI (p=0.478), and prior surgeries (p=0.879). The group comprised 21 females and 10 males, with an average age of 65.5 years. Operative time was significantly longer in the RA group (p<0.001). Regarding screw placement accuracy, no intraoperative screw misplacements occurred in either group. The NA cohort had 10.3% improvement in their pain scores within 30 days postoperatively, while the RA group had 31.0% improvement (p=0.52). No postoperative complication necessitating a revision surgery occurred in the patient cohort. Two hardware failures (screw fractures) were observed in the NA group without worsening of symptoms. Long-term pain outcomes were also comparable, showing an improvement of around 5% in the RA group and 62% in the NA group (p=0.083). Conclusions While there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, a trend toward lower postoperative pain scores was observed in the RA group. The extended operative time in the RA group is attributable to the new technique at our hospital.
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.