Twelve-month clinical and radiographic outcomes following inferior-posterior sacroiliac joint fusion using the Catamaran SI Joint Fusion System: a prospective, multi-center evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Scientific evidence on novel transarticular inferior-posterior surgical approaches for sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion, designed to minimize the risk of neurovascular injury, remains limited.Methods This prospective, multi-center study evaluated disability (ODI), SI-joint pain (VAS), and patient satisfaction following SI joint fusion using the inferior-posterior approach. The primary endpoint was composite success, defined as: (1) ≥20 mm VAS pain reduction, (2) no device-related serious adverse events, (3) no neurological worsening, and (4) no surgical reintervention. Fusion was assessed at 12 months via independent radiographic CT review.Results Thirty-six patients (mean age 58.9 years; 77.8% female) underwent treatment. At the time of analysis, ODI significantly improved from 51.6% at baseline to 28.0% at 6-month (n = 32) and 20.8% at 12-month (n = 24, all p < 0.001). VAS scores declined from 78.8 mm to 35.6 mm at 6-month (n = 30) and 23.0 mm at 12-month (n = 24, all p < 0.001). Composite success was achieved in 73.3% at 6 month and 87.0% at 12 months (post hoc). Fusion was confirmed in 82.6% of cases, with 83.3% patient satisfaction. No serious device- or procedure-related adverse events or reinterventions were reported.Conclusion This interim analysis of an ongoing study demonstrates significant improvements in disability and pain, while the novel surgical approach promotes fusion. Although the results are promising, larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted to validate these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".