S2AI vs. iliac screws in spinopelvic fixation for adult spinal deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis.

IF 1.4 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Alejandro Gómez-Rice, Susana Núñez-Pereira, Sleiman Haddad, Riccardo Raganato, Yann Philippe Charles, Franciso Pérez-Grueso, Frank Kleinstück, Ibrahim Obeid, Ahmet Alanay, Ferran Pellise, Javier Pizones
{"title":"S2AI vs. iliac screws in spinopelvic fixation for adult spinal deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis.","authors":"Alejandro Gómez-Rice, Susana Núñez-Pereira, Sleiman Haddad, Riccardo Raganato, Yann Philippe Charles, Franciso Pérez-Grueso, Frank Kleinstück, Ibrahim Obeid, Ahmet Alanay, Ferran Pellise, Javier Pizones","doi":"10.1007/s00590-025-04215-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) technique with the iliac screw (IS) technique in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients in terms of clinical and radiographical outcomes, focusing on reoperations, complications, and change in radiographic parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter database. ASD patients who underwent long fusion to the pelvis with 2-year postoperative follow-up were included. To compare outcomes (radiographic, clinical, and complications), matching was performed based on the type of pelvic fixation (IS vs. S2AI) using propensity score matching (PSM), 1:1 ratio, caliper 0.1, tolerance ≤ 0.001, with a 95% confidence interval. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for each group and compared between the two groups by the log-rank test. Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1442 patients undergoing intervention with a 2-year follow-up, 555 were identified as having pelvic instrumentation. Among them, 52 patients fixed with S2AI screws were matched with 52 patients fixed with IS using PSM for age, body mass index (BMI), number of fused levels, and global tilt. No significant differences were found in radiographic correction, reoperation rates, or infection rates. The percentage of mechanical complications (MC) was higher in the IS screw group, with a statistically significant increase in MC-free survival in the S2AI screw group (80.6 vs. 61.2 months; p = 0.022), with a HR of 0.43 (p = 0.027). Patients with S2AI screws reported higher immediate postoperative pain at 6 weeks, with this difference leveling off in subsequent assessments. At 2 years, a higher percentage of radiolucent halos were observed in the S2AI screw group (59.6% vs. 34%; p = 0.017), but there were no differences in pain assessments in the quality-of-life tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After a thorough comparison, both pelvic fixation methods showed similar deformity correction and reintervention rates. However, iliac screws had more mechanical complications, while S2AI screws, crossing the sacroiliac joint, led to higher short-term postoperative pain and increased radiological loosening at 2 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"35 1","pages":"104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-025-04215-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) technique with the iliac screw (IS) technique in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients in terms of clinical and radiographical outcomes, focusing on reoperations, complications, and change in radiographic parameters.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of a prospective, multicenter database. ASD patients who underwent long fusion to the pelvis with 2-year postoperative follow-up were included. To compare outcomes (radiographic, clinical, and complications), matching was performed based on the type of pelvic fixation (IS vs. S2AI) using propensity score matching (PSM), 1:1 ratio, caliper 0.1, tolerance ≤ 0.001, with a 95% confidence interval. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for each group and compared between the two groups by the log-rank test. Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results: Out of 1442 patients undergoing intervention with a 2-year follow-up, 555 were identified as having pelvic instrumentation. Among them, 52 patients fixed with S2AI screws were matched with 52 patients fixed with IS using PSM for age, body mass index (BMI), number of fused levels, and global tilt. No significant differences were found in radiographic correction, reoperation rates, or infection rates. The percentage of mechanical complications (MC) was higher in the IS screw group, with a statistically significant increase in MC-free survival in the S2AI screw group (80.6 vs. 61.2 months; p = 0.022), with a HR of 0.43 (p = 0.027). Patients with S2AI screws reported higher immediate postoperative pain at 6 weeks, with this difference leveling off in subsequent assessments. At 2 years, a higher percentage of radiolucent halos were observed in the S2AI screw group (59.6% vs. 34%; p = 0.017), but there were no differences in pain assessments in the quality-of-life tests.

Conclusion: After a thorough comparison, both pelvic fixation methods showed similar deformity correction and reintervention rates. However, iliac screws had more mechanical complications, while S2AI screws, crossing the sacroiliac joint, led to higher short-term postoperative pain and increased radiological loosening at 2 years.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
265
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信