Trends in Lumbosacral-Pelvic Fixation Strategies

<h3>Background</h3> We sought to better understand the current decision-making criteria and surgical strategies for pelvic fixation in spinal surgery. <h3>Methods</h3> A 28-question survey was distributed to an international group of practicing spine surgeons. Questions included training, practice type, criteria for using pelvic fixation, and strategies for pelvic fixation, including the type and technique employed. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 56 responders, 32% were neurosurgeons, and 67% were affiliated with academic institutions. Factors that most influenced the use of pelvic fixation were 3-column osteotomy (3CO), high-grade spondylolisthesis, and L5 to S1 pseudarthrosis. Most report using a single point of pelvic fixation per side for the following: deformity 4+ levels without 3CO (55%) and spondylolisthesis grade 3 (59%). The upper instrumented vertebra threshold for pelvic fixation in degenerative pathology was L2 (70%) or L3 (16%). Most surgeons chose 2 points of fixation per side in the setting of 4 or more levels with 3CO (69%) and revision of at least 3 levels (68%). The predominant (77.6%) fixation preference was S2-alar-iliac screws. Surgeons report using navigation (70%), fluoroscopy (23%), free hand (21%), and robot-assisted (7%) for screw placement. The most common pelvic screw diameter and length were 8.5 mm and 90 mm, respectively. A 5% to 10% pelvic fixation revision rate was reported, primarily for instrumentation failure or pseudarthrosis. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This survey-based study highlights factors influencing surgeons’ decisions on pelvic instrumentation. While complex corrections or revisions often require robust fixation, variability arises in simpler cases, influenced by factors like age, obesity, and bone quality. <h3>Level of Evidence</h3> 4.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The International Journal of Spine Surgery
Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14444/8765
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.01
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trends in Lumbosacral-Pelvic Fixation Strategies

Peter Gust Passias, Elizabeth L. Lord, David A. Essig, Sohaib Hashmi et al.
2 citations
The International Journal of Spine Surgery
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
4.01
article

Trends in Lumbosacral-Pelvic Fixation Strategies

Peter Gust Passias, Elizabeth L. Lord, David A. Essig, Sohaib Hashmi, Christopher J. Kleck, Scott L. Zuckerman, Joshua Heller, Robyn Capobianco, David W. Polly, Paweł Jankowski, Paritash Tahmasebpour
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<h3>Background</h3> We sought to better understand the current decision-making criteria and surgical strategies for pelvic fixation in spinal surgery. <h3>Methods</h3> A 28-question survey was distributed to an international group of practicing spine surgeons. Questions included training, practice type, criteria for using pelvic fixation, and strategies for pelvic fixation, including the type and technique employed. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 56 responders, 32% were neurosurgeons, and 67% were affiliated with academic institutions. Factors that most influenced the use of pelvic fixation were 3-column osteotomy (3CO), high-grade spondylolisthesis, and L5 to S1 pseudarthrosis. Most report using a single point of pelvic fixation per side for the following: deformity 4+ levels without 3CO (55%) and spondylolisthesis grade 3 (59%). The upper instrumented vertebra threshold for pelvic fixation in degenerative pathology was L2 (70%) or L3 (16%). Most surgeons chose 2 points of fixation per side in the setting of 4 or more levels with 3CO (69%) and revision of at least 3 levels (68%). The predominant (77.6%) fixation preference was S2-alar-iliac screws. Surgeons report using navigation (70%), fluoroscopy (23%), free hand (21%), and robot-assisted (7%) for screw placement. The most common pelvic screw diameter and length were 8.5 mm and 90 mm, respectively. A 5% to 10% pelvic fixation revision rate was reported, primarily for instrumentation failure or pseudarthrosis. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This survey-based study highlights factors influencing surgeons’ decisions on pelvic instrumentation. While complex corrections or revisions often require robust fixation, variability arises in simpler cases, influenced by factors like age, obesity, and bone quality. <h3>Level of Evidence</h3> 4.

The International Journal of Spine SurgeryVol. 19(4)
University of Minnesota (US), Northwell Health (US), Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (US), Hofstra University (US), Thomas Jefferson University (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Duke University (US), Neurosciences Institute (US), Vanderbilt University (US), University of California, Irvine (US), SI-Bone (United States) (US), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
4.01
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.