Objective Our study aimed to compare the posterior interposition technique against the posterolateral transosseous technique in the same cadaver specimens.
Methods Computer and cadaver models of 2 fixation techniques were developed. The computer model was constructed to analyze bone volume removed during implant placement and the bony surface area available for fusion. The cadaver model included quasi-static multidirectional bending flexibility and dynamic fatigue loading. Relative motions between the sacrum and ilium were measured intact, after joint destabilization, after fixation with direct-posterior and posterolateral techniques, and after 18,500 cycles of fatigue loading. Relative positions between each implant and the sacrum and ilium were measured after fixation and fatigue loading to ascertain the quality of the bone-implant interface. The 2 techniques were randomized to the left and right sacroiliac joints of the same cadavers.
Results The posterior interposition technique removed less bone volume and facilitated a larger surface area available for bony fusion. Posterior interposition significantly reduced the nutation/counternutation motion of the sacroiliac joint (42% ± 8%) and reduced it more than the posterolateral transosseous technique (14% ± 4%). Upon fatigue loading, the posterior interposition implant maintained the bone-implant interface across all specimens, while the posterolateral transosseous implant migrated or subsided in 20%–50% of specimens.
Conclusion Posterior interposition fixation of the sacroiliac joint reduces joint motion. The amount of fixation from the posterior technique is superior and more durable than the amount of fixation achieved by the posterolateral technique.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Sacroiliac joint fixation with a posterior intra-articular implant versus a posterolateral transiliac implant: A biomechanical comparison Connor Huxman, Joshua Tandio, Douglas Beall, Sarah Mayer, Adam Rogers, Thomas P. Hedman, Jonathan A. Hyde, Usman Latif, Richard Oluwatodimu Raji, Jeremi M. Leasure North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2026; 26: 100871. CrossRef
A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis of a Novel Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Device on Safety and Efficacy at 12 Months: Access Study Michael J. Dorsi, Pankaj Mehta, Chau Vu, Angel Boev, Ashley Bailey-Classen, Greg Moore, David Reece, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Steven Falowski, Jason E. Pope Healthcare.2025; 13(13): 1544. CrossRef
Optimal screw insertion trajectory for sacroiliac joint fusion surgery: An evolutionary and growth process perspective on the sacroiliac joint Daisuke Kurosawa, Kouji Sanaka, Eiichi Murakami Medical Hypotheses.2025; 202: 111730. CrossRef
Objective Interspinous spacer (ISS)-based and pedicle screw-rod dynamic fixator (PDF)-based topping-off devices have been applied in lumbar/lumbosacral fusion surgeries for preventing the development of proximal adjacent segment degeneration. However, little attention has been paid to sacroiliac joint (SIJ), which belongs to the adjacent joints. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare how these 2 topping-off devices affect the SIJ biomechanics.
Methods A validated, normal finite-element lumbopelvic model (L3–pelvis) was initially adjusted to simulate interbody fusion with rigid fixation at the L5–S1 level, and then the DIAM or BioFlex system was instrumented at the L4–5 level to establish the ISS-based or PDF-based topping-off model, respectively. All the developed models were loaded with moments of 4 physiological motions using hybrid loading protocol.
Results Compared with the rigid fusion model (without topping-off devices), range of motion and von-Mises stress at the SIJs were increased by 23.1%–64.1% and 23.6%–62.8%, respectively, for the ISS-based model and by 51.2%–126.7% and 50.4%–108.7%, respectively, for the PDF-based model.
Conclusion The obtained results suggest that the PDF-based topping-off device leads to higher increments in SIJ motion and stress than ISS-based topping-off device following lumbosacral fusion, implying topping-off technique could be linked to an increased risk of SIJ degeneration, especially when using PDF-based device.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Biomechanical Effects of Osteoporosis on the Sacroiliac Joint After Lumbosacral Fusion Surgery Wei Fan, Chao Wang, Sheng-Nan Liu, Yu Zhang, Ming Zhang, Li-Xin Guo IRBM.2025; 46(2): 100877. CrossRef
Comparative efficacy of S2-alar-iliac versus iliac screw techniques in treating adult spinal deformity: a meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and complications Amit Saraf, Sanjeev Kumar Jain, Sonika Sharma Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(5): 847. CrossRef
Objective We aimed to identify the most effective clinical treatment method for sacroiliac joint (SIJ)-related pain based on the systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the comparative efficacy of clinical interventions for sacroiliac joint pain by pooling the randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods Our team conducted a systematic review and NMA of RCTs to determine the most effective clinical treatment for SIJ-related pain. We searched the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for RCTs until February 2023. The PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines were followed. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model.
Results Based on the search strategy and inclusion criteria, our systematic review and NMA included 9 randomized studies with 652 participants. Research has mainly focused on various radiofrequency sources, but their number is still low. In the network analysis, according to the NMA and mean ranking probabilities for the improvement of pain intensity (PI) and quality of life (QoL), sacroiliac joint fusion and cooled radiofrequency were associated with high treatment rank for improving PI and QoL in patients with sacroiliac joint pain.
Conclusion This NMA suggest that SIJ fusion and cooled radiofrequency could be potential options for improving the QoL and relieving pain in patients with SIJ-related pain. Comparison studies of outcomes between these 2 procedures with solid methodology and a low risk of bias would be very beneficial to identify the optimal treatment option for this challenging disease.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Interventional treatments for sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Ji-Hoon Park, Jae Ni Jang, Soyoon Park, Young-Soon Choi, Rakib Miah, Sukhee Park Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine.2026; : rapm-2026-107633. CrossRef
Safety and performance of a novel synthetic biomimetic scaffold for iliac crest defect reconstruction during surgical treatment of pelvic girdle pain: a first-in-human trial Peter V Giannoudis, Paul Andrzejwski, George Chloros, Elizabeth M A Hensor British Medical Bulletin.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Evaluating the Technical Specifications and Clinical Performance of Different Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty Catheters Ji Young Jang, Songrit Vuttipongkul, Dong Soon Jang, Min Cheol Chang Neurospine.2025; 22(2): 465. CrossRef
Advances in Therapeutic Applications of CRISPR Genome Editing for Spinal Pain Management Chan Young Kang, Kyung Wook Been, Myoung-Hee Kang, Myung Su Choi, Rae Hee Kang, Junseok W. Hur, Junho K. Hur Neurospine.2025; 22(2): 421. CrossRef
Effectiveness of a Facet Joint Block Versus a Medial Branch Block in Spinal Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Sung Hyeon Noh, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Dong Ah Shin, Je Hwi Yun, Pyung Goo Cho, Sang Hyun Kim Neurospine.2025; 22(2): 441. CrossRef
Identifying S3 and S2 as Key Pain-Sensitive Targets in High-Frequency Ultrasound Therapy for Sacroiliitis Itay Goor-Aryeh, Paz Kelmer, Ruth Gur, Tal Harel, Roee Sheinfeld, Oded Jacobi, Lior Ungar Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(23): 8314. CrossRef
A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Different Topping-off Devices and Their Influence on the Sacroiliac Joint Following Lumbosacral Fusion Surgery Wei Fan, Song Yang, Jie Chen, Li-Xin Guo, Ming Zhang Neurospine.2024; 21(1): 244. CrossRef
Failed back surgery syndrome—terminology, etiology, prevention, evaluation, and management: a narrative review Jinseok Yeo Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science.2024; 41(3): 166. CrossRef
Sacroiliac joint pain: what treatment and when Federico Cocconi, Nicola Maffulli, Andreas Bell, Michael Kurt Memminger, Francesco Simeone, Filippo Migliorini Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics.2024; 24(11): 1055. CrossRef
Objective Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a common cause of chronic low back pain. Full-endoscopic rhizotomy of lateral branches of dorsal rami innervating SIJ is a potential option for patients’ refractory to medical treatment. The full-endoscopic rhizotomy is sometimes challenging under fluoroscopic guidance. This study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the navigation-assisted full-endoscopic rhizotomy for SIJ pain.
Methods The study was a retrospective match-paired study that enrolled consecutive patients undergoing navigation-assisted full-endoscopic rhizotomy for SIJ pain. The patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and operative parameters of endoscopic rhizotomy were compared with conventional cooled radiofrequency ablation (RFA) treatment.
Results The study enrolled 72 patients, including 36 patients in the endoscopic group. Thirty-six patients in the cooled RFA group were matched by age as the control. The follow-up time was at least 1 year. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The navigation-assisted endoscopic rhizotomy operation time was significantly longer than the cooled RFA. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) significantly decreased after each treatment. However, the between-group comparison revealed that the VAS and ODI of the patients after endoscopic rhizotomy were significantly lower than those after the cooled RFA group. There were no postoperative complications in the study.
Conclusion Navigation-assisted full-endoscopic rhizotomy is an alternative to SIJ pain treatment. Integrating intraoperative navigation can ensure accurate full-endoscopic rhizotomy to provide better durability of pain relief than the cooled RFA.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Subacute and Chronic Low-Back Pain: From MRI Phenotype to Imaging-Guided Interventions Giulia Pacella, Raffaele Natella, Federico Bruno, Michele Fischetti, Michela Bruno, Maria Chiara Brunese, Mario Brunese, Alfonso Forte, Francesco Forte, Biagio Apollonio, Daniele Giuseppe Romano, Marcello Zappia Diagnostics.2026; 16(2): 240. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic sacroiliac joint denervation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review Dia R. Halalmeh, Yusuf-Zain Ansari, Arwa Jader, Rahul Kumar, Amy Herrera, Saqib Hasan Acta Neurochirurgica.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Full-Endoscopic Sacroiliac Joint Denervation for Painful Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Prospective 2-Year Clinical Outcomes and Predictors for Improved Outcomes Saqib Hasan, Dia Radi Halalmeh, Yusuf-Zain Ansari, Amy Herrera, Christoph P. Hofstetter Neurosurgery.2025; 96(1): 213. CrossRef
Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study Jun-Hoe Kim, Hangeul Park, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Rhizotomy for the Treatment of Facetogenic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature Chao-Jui Chang, Yuan-Fu Liu, Yu-Meng Hsiao, Wei-Lun Chang, Yi-Hung Huang, Keng-Chang Liu, Che-Chia Hsu, Ming-Long Yeh, Cheng-Li Lin Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2025; 10(Suppl 1): S42. CrossRef
Management of sacroiliac joint pain: current concepts Filippo Migliorini, Ludovico Lucenti, Tommaso Bardazzi, Andreas Bell, Federico Cocconi, Nicola Maffulli European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation of the Sacroiliac Joint Rajesh Naidu Janapala, Emilija Knezevic, Nebojsa Nick Knezevic, Rachana Pasupuleti, Mahendra R. Sanapati, Alan D. Kaye, Vidyasagar Pampati, Sahar Shekoohi, Laxmaiah Manchikanti Current Pain and Headache Reports.2024; 28(5): 335. CrossRef
Minimally invasive interventional procedures for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Jacopo Ciaffi, Nicolas Papalexis, Elena Vanni, Marco Miceli, Cesare Faldini, Lorenza Scotti, Antonella Zambon, Carlo Salvarani, Roberto Caporali, Giancarlo Facchini, Francesco Ursini Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.2024; 68: 152525. CrossRef
Sacroiliac joint pain: what treatment and when Federico Cocconi, Nicola Maffulli, Andreas Bell, Michael Kurt Memminger, Francesco Simeone, Filippo Migliorini Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics.2024; 24(11): 1055. CrossRef
Endoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Bing-Qi Wu, Da-Yue Chen, Lee Kai Xing Alvin, Pang-Hsuan Hsiao, Chia-Yu Lin, Michael Jian-Wen Chen, Ling-Yi Li, Chien-Ying Lai, Hsien-Te Chen, Chun Tseng Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2024; 9(2): 142. CrossRef
Comparative Efficacy of Clinical Interventions for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis With Preliminary Design of Treatment Algorithm Yanting Liu, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Jin-Sung Kim Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 997. CrossRef
Objective To compare the outcomes of S1 foraminal hooks and iliac screws regarding fusion rate at the lumbosacral junction and protective effects on S1 screws.
Methods From January 2017 to December 2019, consecutive patients who underwent long fusions (uppermost instrumented vertebra at or above L1) to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity were enrolled. Patients were divided into S1 foraminal hook group and iliac screw group. Radiographic parameters and the incidence of pseudarthrosis and instrument failure at the lumbosacral junction were compared between the groups.
Results Twenty-nine patients (male:female = 1:28) with a mean age of 73.6 ± 6.8 years were evaluated. Sixteen patients (55.2%) had S1 foraminal hook fixation and 13 patients (44.8%) had iliac screw fixation. Lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, and sagittal vertical axis did not differ between the groups preoperatively and postoperatively. The rate of L5/S1 pseudarthrosis was significantly higher in S1 foraminal hook group (5 of 16, 31.3%), compared to iliac screw group (0 of 13, 0%; p = 0.048). Instrument failure at the lumbosacral junction trended toward a higher rate in S1 foraminal hook group (6 of 16, 37.5%) than in iliac screw group (1 of 13, 7.7%), without statistical significance (p = 0.09). Proximal junctional kyphosis/failure occurred less often in S1 foraminal hook group (2 of 16, 12.5%) than in iliac screw group (3 of 13, 30.8%) without statistical significance (p = 0.36).
Conclusion Treatment with S1 foraminal hooks achieved equivalent satisfactory sagittal correction with proportioned alignment compared to that with iliac screws. However, S1 foraminal hooks did not provide enough structural support to the lumbosacral junction in long fusions to the sacrum.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Trans-sacral interbody fixation in long fusions to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity: complications and fusion rates at minimum two years follow-up Honglei Yi, Hu Chen, Peirong Lian, Xinran Ji, Matthew E. Cunningham, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei, Han jo Kim, Thomas Ross, Venu M. Nemani, Hong Xia International Orthopaedics.2024; 48(1): 193. CrossRef
Distal Junctional Failure After Fusion Stopping at L5 in Patients With Adult Spinal Deformity: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Radiographic Criteria Sung Ho Do, Sungsoo Bae, Dae Jean Jo, Ho Yong Choi Neurospine.2024; 21(3): 856. CrossRef
Proximal junctional kyphosis: What we didn't know, what we think we know, and what we need to know Austin C. Kaidi, Justin S. Smith, Han Jo Kim Seminars in Spine Surgery.2023; 35(4): 101065. CrossRef
Objective The sacroiliac joint can be a primary source of pain or part of multifactorial syndromes. As there is no single historical, physical examination-based, or radiological feature that definitively establishes a diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain, diagnostic blocks are regarded as the gold standard. The primary aim of this randomized trial was to compare the posteroanterior approach with the classic oblique approach for sacroiliac joint injection based on an assessment of procedure times and patient-reported pain outcomes in subjects scheduled for fluoroscopically-guided sacroiliac joint injections.
Methods Thirty patients were randomized into 2 groups of 15 patients each. The endpoints measured included the total length of procedure time, fluoroscopic time, needling time (length of time the needle was maneuvered), and pre- and postprocedure visual analogue scale pain scores.
Results The posteroanterior approach was significantly shorter in terms of procedure time (p=0.03) and needling time (p=0.01) than the oblique approach. Adjusting for body mass index, the mean procedure and needling times were significantly shorter in the posteroanterior group than in the oblique group.
Conclusion This study of the posteroanterior approach for fluoroscopic-guided sacroiliac joint injection observed shorter times for fluoroscopy, needling, and the overall procedure than were recorded for the widely prevalent oblique approach. This may translate to lower radiation exposure, lower procedural costs, and enhanced ergonomics of fluoroscopicallyguided sacroiliac joint injections.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Fluoroscopy-guided aspiration of the acutely dislocated total hip arthroplasty: a feasible, high-yield, and safe procedure Dyan V. Flores, Abdullah Felemban, Taryn Hodgdon, Paul Beaulé, George Grammatopoulos, Kawan S. Rakhra Insights into Imaging.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Management of sacroiliac joint pain: current concepts Filippo Migliorini, Ludovico Lucenti, Tommaso Bardazzi, Andreas Bell, Federico Cocconi, Nicola Maffulli European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
American Society of Pain and Neuroscience Best Practice (ASPN) Guideline for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Disorders Dawood Sayed, Timothy Deer, Vinicius Tieppo Francio, Christopher Lam, Kamil Sochacki, Nasir Hussain, Tristan Weaver, Jay Karri, Vwaire Orhurhu, Natalie Strand, Jacqueline Weisbein, Jonathan Hagedorn, Ryan D’Souza, Ryan Budwany, Ahish Chitneni, Kasra Amird Journal of Pain Research.2024; Volume 17: 1601. CrossRef
Comparison between intra-articular and combined intra- and periarticular sacroiliac injection: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial Mostafa F. TANTAWY, Wael M. NAZIM Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Sacroiliac joint pain: what treatment and when Federico Cocconi, Nicola Maffulli, Andreas Bell, Michael Kurt Memminger, Francesco Simeone, Filippo Migliorini Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics.2024; 24(11): 1055. CrossRef
Interventional non-operative management of low back and neck pain Hazem M. Alkosha Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Chronic sacroiliac joint dysfunction and CT-guided percutaneous fixation: a 6-year experience F. Jedi, R. Krysiak, J. A. Hirsch, F. Ventura, E. De Vivo, L. Manfrè Neuroradiology.2023; 65(10): 1527. CrossRef
Far-Contralateral Oblique (FCO) Sacroiliac Joint Injection: Description of a Novel Technique David W. Lee, Patrick Buchanan, Shashank Vodapally, Christopher James, Jack Diep, Massimiliano Valeriani Pain Research and Management.2022; 2022: 1. CrossRef
Independent Correlation of the C1–2 Cobb Angle With Patient-Reported Outcomes After Correcting Chronic Atlantoaxial Instability Zhimin Pan, Yanhai Xi, Wei Huang, Keung Nyun Kim, Seong Yi, Dong Ah Shin, Kai Huang, Yu Chen, Zhongren Huang, Da He, Yoon Ha Neurospine.2019; 16(2): 267. CrossRef
Conventional Image-Guided Procedures for Painful Spine Miriam E. Peckham, Troy A. Hutchins, Lubdha M. Shah Neuroimaging Clinics of North America.2019; 29(4): 539. CrossRef
First
Prev
