ReviewBrain & spine2026
Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion evidence gaps with biomechanics, devices, and industry influence: A narrative review.
Review in Brain & spine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Over the past decade, rapid growth in surgical approaches, implant designs, and industry involvement has expanded clinical adoption for minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (SIJF), yet the supporting evidence remains unclear. Research question: This narrative review critically examines current literature on minimally invasive SIJF with emphasis on SIJ biomechanics, surgical approaches (lateral, posterior, and posterolateral), implant technologies, clinical outcomes, safety profiles, and market influences, while highlighting persistent evidence gaps. Material and methods: A narrative review was conducted using PubMed to evaluate studies reporting on clinical outcomes, device trends, biomechanics, and complications of minimally invasive SIJF. Results: The lateral transiliac approach is the most extensively studied and demonstrates consistent improvements in pain and function, though it carries higher reported complication rates due to proximity to neurovascular structures. Posterior and posterolateral approaches have gained popularity more recently, showing promising early clinical outcomes and lower complication rates, but are supported by fewer high-quality studies and shorter follow-up periods. Biomechanical investigations suggest that minimally invasive SIJF primarily achieves joint stabilization rather than complete arthrodesis, challenging traditional definitions of "fusion." Discussion and conclusion: Across approaches, heterogeneity in study design, outcome measures, follow-up duration, and patient selection limits direct comparison and generalizability. High-quality randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up, standardized outcome reporting, and direct comparisons among techniques are needed. Improved integration of biomechanics, patient-specific anatomy, and implant design will be essential to guide evidence-based decision-making and optimize patient outcomes in minimally invasive SIJF.
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.