# Critical Assessment of Evidence Quality of Meta-Analyses Comparing Sacral 2 Alar–Iliac Fixation with Iliac Screws for Adult Spinal Deformity: An Umbrella Review with Emphasis on Methodological Limitations

## TL;DR

This study reviews multiple meta-analyses comparing two spinal fixation techniques and finds they lack methodological quality and consistency, making it hard to determine which is better.

## Contribution

The study critically evaluates the methodological quality and overlap of primary studies in existing meta-analyses on S2AI versus iliac screws for adult spinal deformity.

## Key findings

- All included meta-analyses had critically low methodological quality according to AMSTAR-2.
- High primary study overlap and substantial clinical heterogeneity were observed across the meta-analyses.
- Published meta-analyses generally favor S2AI screws, but limitations prevent definitive conclusions about their superiority.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) management often requires pelvic fixation, with S2 alar–iliac (S2AI) screws emerging as an alternative to traditional iliac screws. Despite multiple meta-analyses comparing these techniques, the methodological quality of these syntheses and technical heterogeneity across primary studies significantly impact their conclusions and subsequent clinical decision-making. This systematic review evaluates the evidence quality of meta-analyses comparing S2AI with traditional iliac screws for ASD management, focusing on methodological rigor, primary study overlap, and clinical heterogeneity. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos were searched for meta-analyses comparing S2AI with iliac screws for patients with ASD. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) checklist and the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool were adopted to assess the methodological quality. Primary study overlap was evaluated using the Corrected Covered Area (CCA) method. Clinical heterogeneity was assessed by examining characteristics of studies included in ≥67% of meta-analyses. Results: From a total of 29 publications, six meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria (4807 patients; mean age: 59 years; 33% female). All included meta-analyses exhibited critically low methodological quality per AMSTAR-2, with common flaws including failure to provide lists of excluded studies and lack of a priori protocols. Very high primary study overlap was observed (CCA: 31%), with only 11% (2 of 19) primary studies included in all meta-analyses, whereas 42% (8 of 19) primary studies were included by only a single meta-analysis. Substantial clinical heterogeneity existed regarding patient characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcome definitions. Conclusions: This systematic review of meta-analyses identified critically low methodological quality, high primary study overlap, and substantial clinical heterogeneity in the existing evidence comparing pelvic fixation techniques for ASD. While published meta-analyses generally favor S2AI screws, these significant limitations prevent drawing definitive conclusions about superiority. Future research should prioritize high-quality prospective studies with standardized reporting to generate more reliable evidence for improving surgical outcomes in ASD management.