Influence of the screw augmentation technique and a diameter increase on pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine: pullout versus fatigue testing

被引:86
|
作者
Kueny, Rebecca A. [1 ]
Kolb, Jan P. [2 ]
Lehmann, Wolfgang [2 ]
Pueschel, Klaus [3 ]
Morlock, Michael M. [1 ]
Huber, Gerd [1 ]
机构
[1] TUHH Hamburg Univ Technol, Inst Biomech, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany
[2] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Dept Trauma Hand & Reconstruct Surg, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany
[3] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Inst Forens Med, D-22529 Hamburg, Germany
关键词
Pedicle screw; Spine; Cement augmentation; Pullout; Fatigue; Toggle; CEMENT AUGMENTATION; BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS; COMPLICATIONS; STRENGTH; LUMBAR; INSTRUMENTATION; STABILIZATION; VERTEBRAE; REVISION;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-014-3476-7
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
For posterior spinal stabilization, loosening of pedicle screws at the bone-screw interface is a clinical complication, especially in the osteoporotic population. Axial pullout testing is the standard pre-clinical testing method for new screw designs although it has questioned clinical relevance. The aim of this study was to determine the fixation strength of three current osteoporotic fixation techniques and to investigate whether or not pullout testing results can directly relate to those of the more physiologic fatigue testing. Thirty-nine osteoporotic, human lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws according to four treatment groups: (1) screw only (control), (2) prefilled augmentation, (3) screw injected augmentation, and (4) unaugmented screws with an increased diameter. Toggle testing was first performed on one pedicle, using a cranial-caudal sinusoidal, cyclic (1.0 Hz) fatigue loading applied at the screw head. The initial compressive forces ranged from 25 to 75 N. Peak force increased stepwise by 25 N every 250 cycles until a 5.4-mm screw head displacement. The contralateral screw then underwent pure axial pullout (5 mm/min). When compared to the control group, screw injected augmentation increased fatigue force (27 %, p = 0.045) while prefilled augmentation reduced fatigue force (-7 %, p = 0.73). Both augmentation techniques increased pullout force compared to the control (ps < 0.04). Increasing the screw diameter by 1 mm increased pullout force (24 %, p = 0.19), fatigue force (5 %, p = 0.73), and induced the least stiffness loss (-29 %) from control. For the osteoporotic spine, screw injected augmentation showed the best biomechanical stability. Although pullout testing was more sensitive, the differences observed were not reflected in the more physiological fatigue testing, thus casting further doubt on the clinical relevance of pullout testing.
引用
收藏
页码:2196 / 2202
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Influence of the screw augmentation technique and a diameter increase on pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine: pullout versus fatigue testing
    Rebecca A. Kueny
    Jan P. Kolb
    Wolfgang Lehmann
    Klaus Püschel
    Michael M. Morlock
    Gerd Huber
    European Spine Journal, 2014, 23 : 2196 - 2202
  • [2] Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines
    Sarzier, JS
    Evans, AJ
    Cahill, DW
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2002, 96 (03) : 309 - 312
  • [3] Effect of pedicle screw diameter on screw fixation efficacy in human osteoporotic thoracic vertebrae
    Lai, Dar-Ming
    Shih, Yu-Tang
    Chen, Yi-Hsing
    Chien, Andy
    Wang, Jaw-Lin
    JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 2018, 70 : 196 - 203
  • [4] Biomechanical Investigation of a Novel Revision Device in an Osteoporotic Model Pullout Strength of Pedicle Screw Anchor Versus Larger Screw Diameter
    Manon, Jacinto
    Hussain, Mir M.
    Harris, Jonathan
    Moldavsky, Mark
    La Marca, Frank
    Bucklen, Brandon S.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (06): : 265 - 271
  • [5] Comparison of the fenestrated pedicle screw and conventional pedicle screw in minimally percutaneous fixation for the treatment of spondylolisthesis with osteoporotic spine
    Wang, Wenkai
    Liu, Chao
    Li, Jie
    Li, Haiyin
    Wu, Junlong
    Liu, Huan
    Li, Changqing
    Zhou, Yue
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 183
  • [6] Pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic spine: indications, limitations and technical aspects
    S. Hoppe
    M. J. B. Keel
    European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2017, 43 : 3 - 8
  • [7] Pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic spine: indications, limitations and technical aspects
    Hoppe, S.
    Keel, M. J. B.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND EMERGENCY SURGERY, 2017, 43 (01) : 3 - 8
  • [8] Minimally invasive percutaneous pedicle screw fixation versus open pedicle screw fixation for senile osteoporotic vertebral fracture
    Liu, Gang
    Liu, Bin
    Yang, Yong
    Tian, Le
    Liu, Ya'ou
    Wang, Jianhua
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2020, 13 (03): : 1816 - 1822
  • [9] Osteoporotic lumbar spine - Principles of pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion
    Parthiban, J. K. B. C.
    NEUROLOGY INDIA, 2018, 66 (01) : 126 - 132
  • [10] A METHOD FOR THE FATIGUE TESTING OF PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION DEVICES
    GOEL, VK
    WINTERBOTTOM, JM
    WEINSTEIN, JN
    JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS, 1994, 27 (11) : 1383 - 1388