Literature DB >> 16778665

Biomechanical comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone.

Alihan Derincek1, Chunhui Wu, Amir Mehbod, Ensor E Transfeldt.   

Abstract

Many salvage options for failed thoracic pedicle screws exist including the use of a different trajectory or the augmentation of the screw with polymethylmethacrylate cement. Although polymethylmethacrylate immediately increases the construct stiffness and the pull-out strength, it may cause bone necrosis, toxin relaxation, and/or neural injury. On the other hand, calcium sulfate bone grafts have a high potential for biologic incorporation and no thermal damage effect. In the current study, polyaxial pedicle screws were first inserted with a straightforward approach on both sides in 17 fresh human cadaveric thoracic vertebrae. The maximal insertion torque for each screw was measured and then the pull-out strengths were recorded. Afterward, these pedicle screws were randomly assigned to be replaced either by graft augmentation or by anatomic trajectory technique for salvage. The graft-augmented screws were placed using the previous holes. The maximum insertional torque for each anatomic trajectory screw was measured. Finally, the pull-out strengths of the revision screws were recorded. The mean maximum insertional torque decreased with the anatomic trajectory salvage technique when compared with the straightforward approach, 0.23 versus 0.38 Nm, respectively (P=0.003). The anatomic trajectory revision resulted in decreased pull-out strength when compared with the pull-out strength of the straightforward technique, 297 versus 469 N, respectively (P=0.003). The calcium sulfate graft augmentation increased the pull-out strength when compared with the pull-out strength of the straightforward technique, 680 versus 477 N, respectively (P=0.017). The mean pull-out strength ratio of revised screw to original was 0.71 for anatomic trajectory and 1.8 for graft-augmented screws, a statistically significant difference (P=0.002).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16778665     DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211203.31244.a0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  14 in total

1.  [Pedicle screw augmentation from a biomechanical perspective].

Authors:  V Bullmann; U R Liljenqvist; R Rödl; T L Schulte
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Which salvage fixation technique is best for the failed initial screw fixation at the cervicothoracic junction? A biomechanical comparison study.

Authors:  Jae Taek Hong; Takigawa Tomoyuki; Ashish Jain; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Nozomu Inoue; Howard S An
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  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

Review 4.  Innovation of Surgical Techniques for Screw Fixation in Patients with Osteoporotic Spine.

Authors:  Haruo Kanno; Yoshito Onoda; Ko Hashimoto; Toshimi Aizawa; Hiroshi Ozawa
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 4.964

5.  Different pedicle osteosynthesis for thoracolumbar vertebral fractures in elderly patients.

Authors:  Massimo Girardo; Alessandro Rava; Federico Fusini; Giosuè Gargiulo; Angela Coniglio; Pasquale Cinnella
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Novel augmentation technique of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation using hydroxyapatite granules in the osteoporotic lumbar spine: a cadaveric biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Haruo Kanno; Toshimi Aizawa; Ko Hashimoto; Eiji Itoi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Strategy for salvage pedicle screw placement: A technical note.

Authors:  Shunsuke Fujibayashi; Mitsuru Takemoto; Masashi Neo; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2013-12-01

8.  Comparison of expansive pedicle screw and polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw in osteoporotic sheep lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical and interfacial evaluations.

Authors:  Da Liu; Yi Zhang; Bo Zhang; Qing-yun Xie; Cai-ru Wang; Jin-biao Liu; Dong-fa Liao; Kai Jiang; Wei Lei; Xian-ming Pan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Designs and techniques that improve the pullout strength of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: current status.

Authors:  Thomas M Shea; Jake Laun; Sabrina A Gonzalez-Blohm; James J Doulgeris; William E Lee; Kamran Aghayev; Frank D Vrionis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae.

Authors:  C I Leichtle; A Lorenz; S Rothstock; J Happel; F Walter; T Shiozawa; U G Leichtle
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.