Biomechanical comparative study of midline cortical vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectory in osteoporotic bone

被引:1
|
作者
Schleifenbaum, Stefan [1 ,2 ]
Vogl, Ann-Cathrin [1 ,2 ]
Heilmann, Robin [1 ,2 ]
von der Hoeh, Nicolas Heinz [1 ]
Heyde, Christoph-Eckhard [1 ,2 ]
Jarvers, Jan-Sven [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leipzig, Dept Orthoped Trauma & Plast Surg, Liebigstr 20, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
[2] ZESBO Zent Erforschung Stuetz & Bewegungsorgane, Semmelweisstr 14, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
关键词
Cortical bone trajectory (CBT); Biomechanical analysis; MC; Osteoporosis; Patient-specific placement guide; POLYMETHYLMETHACRYLATE AUGMENTATION; SURGICAL-TREATMENT; FIXATION STRENGTH; SPINE; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1186/s12891-023-06502-x
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
IntroductionIn lumbar spinal stabilization pedicle screws are used as standard. However, especially in osteoporosis, screw anchorage is a problem. Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) is an alternative technique designed to increase stability without the use of cement. In this regard, comparative studies showed biomechanical superiority of the MC (midline cortical bone trajectory) technique with longer cortical progression over the CBT technique. The aim of this biomechanical study was to comparatively investigate the MC technique against the not cemented pedicle screws (TT) in terms of their pullout forces and anchorage properties during sagittal cyclic loading according to the ASTM F1717 test.MethodsFive cadavers (L1 to L5), whose mean age was 83.3 +/- 9.9 years and mean T Score of -3.92 +/- 0.38, were dissected and the vertebral bodies embedded in polyurethane casting resin. Then, one screw was randomly inserted into each vertebra using a template according to the MC technique and a second one was inserted by freehand technique with traditional trajectory (TT). The screws were quasi-static extracted from vertebrae L1 and L3, while for L2, L4 and L5 they were first tested dynamically according to ASTM standard F1717 (10,000 cycles at 1 Hz between 10 and 110 N) and then quasi-static extracted. In order to determine possible screw loosening, there movements were recorded during the dynamic tests using an optical measurement system.ResultsThe pull-out tests show a higher pull-out strength for the MC technique of 555.4 +/- 237.0 N compared to the TT technique 448.8 +/- 303.2 N. During the dynamic tests (L2, L4, L5), 8 out of the 15 TT screws became loose before completing 10,000 cycles. In contrast, all 15 MC screws did not exceed the termination criterion and were thus able to complete the full test procedure. For the runners, the optical measurement showed greater relative movement of the TT variant compared to the MC variant. The pull-out tests also revealed that the MC variant had a higher pull-out strength, measuring at766.7 +/- 385.4 N, while the TT variant measured 637.4 +/- 435.6 N.ConclusionThe highest pullout forces were achieved by the MC technique. The main difference between the techniques was observed in the dynamic measurements, where the MC technique exhibited superior primary stability compared to the conventional technique in terms of primary stability. Overall, the MC technique in combination with template-guided insertion represents the best alternative for anchoring screws in osteoporotic bone without cement.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Biomechanical comparative study of midline cortical vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectory in osteoporotic bone
    Stefan Schleifenbaum
    Ann-Cathrin Vogl
    Robin Heilmann
    Nicolas Heinz von der Hoeh
    Christoph-Eckhard Heyde
    Jan-Sven Jarvers
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 24
  • [2] Biomechanical impact of cortical bone vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectories: a finite element study on lumbar spinal instrumentation
    Li, Xishan
    Abdel-Latif, Khaled H. A.
    Schwab, Jefrem
    Zhou, Xiang
    Yang, Jie
    Ritter, Zully M.
    Schilling, Arndt F.
    Reinhold, Maximilian
    FRONTIERS IN BIOENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2025, 13
  • [3] Biomechanical Evaluation of Cortical Bone Trajectory Fixation with Traditional Pedicle Screw in the Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Study
    Su, Kuo-Chih
    Chen, Kun-Hui
    Pan, Chien-Chou
    Lee, Cheng-Hung
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2021, 11 (22):
  • [4] Biomechanical Evaluation of Cross Trajectory Technique for Pedicle Screw Insertion: Combined Use of Traditional Trajectory and Cortical Bone Trajectory
    Matsukawa, Keitaro
    Yato, Yoshiyuki
    Imabayashi, Hideaki
    Hosogane, Naobumi
    Asazuma, Takashi
    Nemoto, Koichi
    ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY, 2015, 7 (04) : 317 - 323
  • [5] A Biomechanical Study on Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation Augmented With Cement in Osteoporotic Spines
    Wang, Yuetian
    Yang, Lei
    Li, Chunde
    Sun, Haolin
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 13 (08) : 2115 - 2123
  • [6] Radiographic feasibility study of cortical bone trajectory and traditional pedicle screw dual trajectories
    Mullin, Jeffrey P.
    Perlmutter, Breanna
    Schmidt, Eric
    Benzel, Edward
    Steinmetz, Michael P.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2016, 25 (06) : 727 - 732
  • [7] A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
    Hiroki Oshino
    Toshihiko Sakakibara
    Tadashi Inaba
    Takamasa Yoshikawa
    Takaya Kato
    Yuichi Kasai
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 10
  • [8] A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation
    Oshino, Hiroki
    Sakakibara, Toshihiko
    Inaba, Tadashi
    Yoshikawa, Takamasa
    Kato, Takaya
    Kasai, Yuichi
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2015, 10
  • [9] Controversies in Spine Surgery Is a Cortical Bone Trajectory Superior to Traditional Pedicle Screw Trajectory?
    Kolz, Joshua M.
    Pinter, Zachariah W.
    Bydon, Mohamad
    Sebastian, Arjun S.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2022, 35 (06): : 225 - 228
  • [10] Lumbar pedicle cortical bone trajectory screw
    Song Tengfei
    Hsu, Wellington K.
    Ye Tianwen
    CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 127 (21) : 3808 - 3813