Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 18;9(3):14–23. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v9.i3.14

Table 3.

Reduction in sacroiliac joint range of motion (°) between mid-sacrum and mid-ala placement groups

Reduction in SI joint ROM (°) (%)
Superior implant ending point Orientation Implants (position) Flexion-extension Lateral bending Axial rotation
Mid-sacrum vs mid-ala Inline 3 (S, M, I) 0.07° (10%) 0.04° (9%) 0.03° (7%)
2 (S, -, I) 0.13° (16%) 0.04° (9%) 0.04° (9%)
2 (S, M, -) 0.21° (22%) 0.05° (10%) 0.06° (12%)
1 (S, -, -) 0.15° (11%) 0.00° (0%) 0.06° (9%)
Trans-articular 3 (S, M, I) 0.07° (12%) 0.03° (7%) 0.03° (9%)
2 (S, -, I) 0.11° (16%) 0.03° (7%) 0.04° (11%)
2 (S, M, -) 0.17° (21%) 0.04° (9%) 0.05° (13%)
1 (S, -, -) 0.15° (11%) 0.00° (0%) 0.06° (9%)
Median (°) (Range) 0.14° (0.07-0.21) 0.035° (0.00-0.05) 0.045° (0.03-0.06)
Median (%) (Range) 14% (10-22) 8% (0-10) 9% (7-13)

The reduction in range of motion (%) was calculated in comparison to the to the mid-ala superior implant length. S: Superior; M: Middle; I: Inferior.