Literature DB >> 20087222

Biomechanical comparison of 4 fixation techniques of sacral pedicle screw in osteoporotic condition.

Bin-Sheng Yu1, Xin-Ming Zhuang, Zhao-Min Zheng, Jia-Fang Zhang, Ze-Min Li, William W Lu.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical cadaver study.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the subsidence displacement after cyclic loading among 4 sacral pedicle screw fixations of bicortical, tricortical, standard polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) augmentation, and sub-endplate PMMA augmentation in osteoporotic condition. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Implant failure caused by screw loosening is a clinical problem for lumbosacral fusions, especially in osteoporotic patients. To improve sacral screw anchoring strength, the main fixation techniques need to be evaluated biomechanically.
METHODS: For this study, 11 fresh osteoporotic cadaver sacra were harvested and bone mineral density was measured with dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry. A 7 mm diameter monoaxial pedicle screw (S1) was randomly assigned by side (left vs. right) and placed bicortically or tricortically. The 2 screws, followed 2000 cyclic compression loading of 30 to 250 N, were removed. The screw tracts were filled up with PMMA, then, screws 5 mm shorter than the bicortical or tricortical fixation were reinserted (defined as standard and sub-endplate PMMA augmented sacral screw fixations, respectively). The PMMA augmented screws were then retested as before. Screw subsidence displacement after 2000 cyclic loading was measured and compared.
RESULTS: The average bone mineral density of 11 specimens was 0.71 g/cm, ranged from 0.65 to 0.78 g/cm. No significant difference of subsidence displacement was detected between tricortical and standard PMMA augmented screws (P>0.05), however, the 2 fixations exhibited markedly less subsidence than bicortical screw (P<0.05). Sub-endplate PMMA augmented screw showed the least subsidence among all the screws (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: PMMA augmentation can increase the bonding strength of sacral screw-bone interface and the sub-endplate PMMA augmented sacral screw could obtain the highest stability among the 4 fixation techniques in osteoporotic condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20087222     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181b63f4d

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


  7 in total

1.  A study of sacral anthropometry to determine S1 screw placement for spinal lumbosacral fixation in the Korean population.

Authors:  Young-Yul Kim; Kee-Yong Ha; Sang-Il Kim; In-Soo Oh
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic spine: indications, limitations and technical aspects.

Authors:  S Hoppe; M J B Keel
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.693

3.  Pedicle Screws Loosening in Patients With Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbar Spine: Potential Risk Factors and Relative Contribution.

Authors:  Andrey Bokov; Anatoliy Bulkin; Alexander Aleynik; Marina Kutlaeva; Sergey Mlyavykh
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-05-24

4.  The relationship between S1 screw loosening and postoperative outcome in patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

Authors:  Fei Xu; Siyu Zhou; Da Zou; Weishi Li; Zhuoran Sun; Shuai Jiang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  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

6.  Risk factors for screw loosening in patients with adult degenerative scoliosis: the importance of paraspinal muscle degeneration.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Weishi Li; Zhongqiang Chen
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.359

7.  Biomechanical evaluation of monosegmental pedicle instrumentation in a calf spine model and the role of fractured vertebrae in screw stability.

Authors:  Fuxin Wei; Zhiyu Zhou; Le Wang; Shaoyu Liu; Rui Zhong; Xizhe Liu; Shangbin Cui; Ximin Pan; Manman Gao; Yajing Zhao
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 2.741

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.