Literature DB >> 21387138

Biomechanical comparison of different techniques in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: expansive pedicle screw versus polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw.

Da Liu1, Zi-xiang Wu, Xian-ming Pan, Suo-chao Fu, Ming-xuan Gao, Lei Shi, Wei Lei.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Transpedicular fixation can be challenging in the osteoporotic spine. Expansive pedicle screw (EPS) and polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) were both used to increase screw stability. However, there are a little or no biomechanical comparisons of EPS and PMMA-PS, especially in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic vertebrae. The purpose of this study was to compare the stability of EPS and PMMA-PS in primary spinal surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen osteoporotic vertebrae were randomly divided into three groups. The conventional pedicle screw (CPS) was inserted in CPS group, the pilot hole was filled with PMMA followed by CPS insertion in PMMA-PS group, and EPS was inserted in EPS group. Twenty-four hours later, X-ray and CT examination and biomechanical tests were performed to all vertebrae.
RESULTS: In PMMA-PS group, PMMA existed in bone tissue around the CPS in both vertebral body and pedicle of vertebral arch, and PMMA surrounding the screw formed a spindle-shaped structure in vertebral body. In EPS group, anterior part of EPS presented an obvious expansion in vertebral body and formed a clawlike structure. Screw stabilities in PMMA-PS and EPS groups were significantly enhanced compared with those in CPS group (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between PMMA-PS and EPS groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Expansive pedicle screw can markedly enhance screw stability with a similar effect to the traditional method of screw augmentation with PMMA in primary surgery in osteoporotic vertebrae. In addition, EPS can overcome pedicle fracture, leakage and compression caused by lager screw and augmentation with PMMA. We propose that EPS is an effective, safe and easy method and has a great application potential in augmentation of screw stability in osteoporosis in clinic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21387138     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-011-1290-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  16 in total

1.  Analysis of bone cement distribution around fenestrated pedicle screws in low bone quality lumbosacral vertebrae.

Authors:  Sergio Gómez González; Gerard Cabestany Bastida; Maria Daniela Vlad; José López López; Pablo Buenestado Caballero; Luis Alvarez-Galovich; Maria Rodríguez-Arguisjuela; Enrique Fernández Aguado
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Can cavity-based pedicle screw augmentation decrease screw loosening? A biomechanical in vitro study.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Riesner; Thomas R Blattert; Renate Krezdorn; Simone Schädler; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Time to augment?! Impact of cement augmentation on pedicle screw fixation strength depending on bone mineral density.

Authors:  Lukas Weiser; Gerd Huber; Kay Sellenschloh; Lennart Viezens; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Wolfgang Lehmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  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

5.  Percutaneous consolidation of loosened spine arthrodesis under CT and fluoroscopy guidance by radiologists: a new useful technique.

Authors:  Nicolas Amoretti; Anne-Sophie Bertrand; Giacomo Gallo; Amandine Caudal; Francois Cornelis; Olivier Hauger; Pascal Boileau
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  [Polymethylmethacrylate-augmented screw fixation in treatment of senile thoracolumbar tuberculosis combined with severe osteoporosis].

Authors:  Qingda Li; Hao Chen; Tuanjiang Liu; Limin He; Peng Liu; Yuanting Zhao; Jinpeng Du; Peng Zou; Zhengping Zhang; Baorong He; Junsong Yang; Dingjun Hao
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-12-15

7.  Axial pullout strength comparison of different screw designs: fenestrated screw, dual outer diameter screw and standard pedicle screw.

Authors:  Evangelos Christodoulou; Suresh Chinthakunta; Divya Reddy; Saif Khalil; Thomas Apostolou; Philipp Drees; Konstantinos Kafchitsas
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2015-05-01

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.  Percutaneous cement-augmented screws fixation in the fractures of the aging spine: is it the solution?

Authors:  Sébastien Pesenti; Benjamin Blondel; Emilie Peltier; Tarek Adetchessi; Henry Dufour; Stéphane Fuentes
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.