Literature DB >> 14501915

Effect of various tapping diameters on insertion of thoracic pedicle screws: a biomechanical analysis.

Timothy R Kuklo1, Ronald A Lehman.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A biomechanical cadaver study to assess the effect of various tapping diameters on thoracic pedicle screw insertional torque. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Thoracic pedicle screws are now commonly used for deformity and nondeformity cases. The optimal insertion techniques, however, have not been determined.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of various tapping techniques before insertion of thoracic pedicle screws in terms of maximal insertional torque (MIT) or screw pullout.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four fresh cadaveric thoracic vertebrae were harvested and evaluated with dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DEXA) to assess bone mineral density (BMD). Twenty-three matched, fixed-head, 5.0-mm pedicle screws (group 1) were placed using the straight-forward (ST) trajectory (paralleling the endplate) at various thoracic levels after random side selection using either line-to-line tapping (5.0-mm tap) or 1-mm undertapping (4.0-mm tap) under direct and fluoroscopic visualization. After this, 11 matched 5.0-mm pedicle screws (group 2) were placed comparing undertapping by 0.5 mm (4.5-mm tap) with 1 mm undertapping (4.0-mm tap). MIT was recorded for each screw revolution with a digital torque wrench.
RESULTS: BMD averaged 0.732 g/cm2 (0.620-0.884 g/cm2) for group 1, and 614 g/cm2 (0.533-0.697 g/cm2) for group 2. In group 1, the average MIT was 0.153 +/- 0.009 (SE) Nm for line-to-line tapping and 0.295 +/- 0.021 (SE) Nm for 1-mm undertapping, a 93% increase in MIT (P < 0.0005). In group 2, the average MIT was 0.138 +/- 0.009 (SE) Nm for 0.5 mm undertapping and 0.202 +/- 0.018 (SE) Nm for undertapping by 1 mm, a 47% increase in MIT (P = 0.03). BMD correlated with undertapping by 1 mm in group 1 (P < 0.0005), but not with undertapping by 0.5 mm (P = 0.087), although there appeared to be a trend in osteoporotic specimens. There were no noted differences in MIT between thoracic regions/levels, despite small differences in thoracic pedicle widths (P = 0.193). DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: Undertapping the thoracic pedicle by 1-mm increases MIT by 47% (P = 0.03) when compared with undertapping by 0.5 mm, and by 93% (P < 0.0005) when compared with tapping line-to-line.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14501915     DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000084665.31967.02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  10 in total

1.  Financial analysis of circumferential fusion versus posterior-only with thoracic pedicle screw constructs for main thoracic idiopathic curves between 70 degrees and 100 degrees.

Authors:  Scott J Luhmann; Lawrence G Lenke; Yongjung J Kim; Keith H Bridwell; Mario Schootman
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 1.548

2.  Alignment of pedicle screws with pilot holes: can tapping improve screw trajectory in thoracic spines?

Authors:  Serkan Erkan; Brian Hsu; Chunhui Wu; Amir A Mehbod; John Perl; Ensor E Transfeldt
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-14       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  The effect of starting point placement technique on thoracic transverse process strength: an ex vivo biomechanical study.

Authors:  Barrett S Brown; Terence E McIff; Rudolph C Glattes; Douglas C Burton; Marc A Asher
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2010-07-13

4.  The Influence of Thread Tap Mismatch on Pedicle Screw Pullout Strength.

Authors:  Rômulo Pedroza Pinheiro; Raffaello de Freitas Miranda; Antonio Carlos Shimano; Thibault Chandanson; Keri George; Helton L A Defino
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2022-01-21

5.  EFFECT OF PILOT HOLE TAPPING ON PULLOUT STRENGTH AND INSERTION TORQUE OF DUAL CORE PEDICLE SCREWS.

Authors:  Rodrigo César Rosa; Patrícia Silva; Maurício José Falcai; Antônio Carlos Shimano; Helton Luiz Aparecido Defino
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2015-11-16

6.  Current concepts and controversies on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Part II.

Authors:  Alok Sud; Athanasios I Tsirikos
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.251

7.  In vitro biomechanical study of pedicle screw pull-out strength based on different screw path preparation techniques.

Authors:  Mark Moldavsky; Kanaan Salloum; Brandon Bucklen; Saif Khalil; Jwalant S Mehta
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.251

Review 8.  Lumbar pedicle screw fixation with cortical bone trajectory: A review from anatomical and biomechanical standpoints.

Authors:  Keitaro Matsukawa; Yoshiyuki Yato
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2017-11-27

9.  A Review of Strategies to Improve Biomechanical Fixation in the Cervical Spine.

Authors:  Colby Oitment; Patrick Thornley; Frank Koziarz; Thorsten Jentzsch; Kunal Bhanot
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2022-01-12

10.  Risk Factor Analysis of Facet Fusion Following Cervical Lateral Mass Screw Fixation with a Minimum 1-Year Follow-up: Assessment of Maximal Insertional Screw Torque and Incidence of Loosening.

Authors:  Ryo Kanematsu; Junya Hanakita; Toshiyuki Takahashi; Manabu Minami; Tomoo Inoue; Fumiaki Honda
Journal:  Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo)       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 1.742

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.