ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Optimized posterior starting point of sacral-alar-iliac screw/reverse sacral-alar-iliac screw for sacroiliac joint fixation: experimental study and preliminary application.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundA classic posterior starting point of sacral-alar-iliac screw (SAIS) for spinopelvic fixation may not be optimal for sacroiliac joint fixation. We aimed to compare the safety and biomechanical performance of SAIS/reverse SAIS (RSAIS) implanted via the classic (lateral S1-S2 dorsal foramina border) versus modified (medial S1-S2 dorsal foramina border) posterior starting point for sacroiliac joint fixation.
methodsEighty normal pelvic CT scans were used to measure the outer widths (OWs) of the SAIS/RSAIS posterior starting point of the classic and modified methods. 7.3 mm SAIS were implanted using the two methods on each side of 20 3D-printed models to examine sacral-side screw trajectory penetration. Fourteen Tile C1 injury models were divided into two groups and fixed with S2AIS implanted using either the classic (penetrating) or modified (non-penetrating) method to compare the stiffness and maximum loads of the final fixations. Six patients received percutaneous SAIS/RSAIS fixation using the modified method. Screw positions (Smith criteria), pain (visual analogue scale, VAS) and function (Majeed score) were assessed.
resultsThe modified method gave larger OWs for both S1AIS (7.80 vs. 5.11 mm) and S2AIS (5.85 vs. 3.04 mm) and reduced sacral-side screw trajectory penetration (S1AIS: 2.5% vs. 25%; S2AIS: 60% vs. 95%) than the classic method (all p < 0.05). Modified method fixation exhibited 13.8% higher stiffness and 26.2% greater maximum load than the classic method (p < 0.05). All SAIS/RSAIS positions were rated "excellent". During a postoperative follow-up of 7-20 months, no screw loosening or fixation failure occurred. Mean VAS increased from 5.6 preoperatively to 1.6 postoperatively, and mean Majeed from 59.7 to 81.
conclusionThe medial border of S1-S2 dorsal foramina provides a safer and more stable posterior starting point for SAIS/RSAIS in sacroiliac joint fixation, particularly for S2AIS/RS2AIS, outperforming the lateral border method.
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.