ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Sacroiliac joint fixation with a posterior intra-articular implant versus a posterolateral transiliac implant: A biomechanical comparison.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Along with the growing recognition of sacroiliac joint dysfunction as a contributor to chronic low back pain has come the increase in the utilization of sacroiliac fusion devices. Relative to the various surgical approaches for sacroiliac joint fusion, the posterior intra-articular approach has been described as a potentially less invasive approach that has less proximity to critical neurovascular structures. Methods: In this controlled cadaveric study, posterior and posterolateral sacroiliac fixation implants are compared, characterizing each implant's joint stabilization, resistance to fatigue loading, implantation geometry, and positional safety. Pelves were subjected to isolated flexion/extension, lateral bending, axial rotation, and axial compression loads in intact, destabilized, fixed, and postfatigue conditions. Reductions in motion were computed with optical marker tracking. Positional safety was assessed through radiographic measurements from each implant to salient anatomic landmarks. Results: Compared to the posterolateral implant, the novel posterior implant provides improved flexion/extension stability both after fixation (33% vs. 0% motion reduction, p < .01) and after fatigue loading (25% reduction vs. 1% increase, p < .05). The posterior implant reduces device migration after fatigue loading (0.1 mm vs. 0.7 mm, p < .05), removes less bone during placement (955 mm Conclusions: These cadaveric findings suggest biomechanical stability and positional safety advantages for the posterior device. Additional data on patient outcomes, fusion rates, and intraoperative safety is needed to assess clinical performance.
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.