Literature DB >> 25813011

Effect of augmentation techniques on the failure of pedicle screws under cranio-caudal cyclic loading.

Richard Bostelmann1, Alexander Keiler2, Hans Jakob Steiger3, Armin Scholz4, Jan Frederick Cornelius3, Werner Schmoelz2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Augmentation of pedicle screws is recommended in selected indications (for instance: osteoporosis). Generally, there are two techniques for pedicle screw augmentation: inserting the screw in the non cured cement and in situ-augmentation with cannulated fenestrated screws, which can be applied percutaneously. Most of the published studies used an axial pull out test for evaluation of the pedicle screw anchorage. However, the loading and the failure mode of pullout tests do not simulate the cranio-caudal in vivo loading and failure mechanism of pedicle screws. The purpose of the present study was to assess the fixation effects of different augmentation techniques (including percutaneous cement application) and to investigate pedicle screw loosening under physiological cyclic cranio-caudal loading.
METHODS: Each of the two test groups consisted of 15 vertebral bodies (L1-L5, three of each level per group). Mean age was 84.3 years (SD 7.8) for group 1 and 77.0 years (SD 7.00) for group 2. Mean bone mineral density was 53.3 mg/cm3 (SD 14.1) for group 1 and 53.2 mg/cm3 (SD 4.3) for group 2. 1.5 ml high viscosity PMMA bone cement was used for all augmentation techniques. For test group 1, pedicles on the right side of the vertebrae were instrumented with solid pedicle screws in standard fashion without augmentation and served as control group. Left pedicles were instrumented with cannulated screws (Viper cannulated, DePuy Spine) and augmented. For test group 2 pedicles on the left side of the vertebrae were instrumented with cannulated fenestrated screws and in situ augmented. On the right side solid pedicle screws were augmented with cement first technique. Each screw was subjected to a cranio-caudal cyclic load starting at 20-50 N with increasing upper load magnitude of 0.1 N per cycle (1 Hz) for a maximum of 5000 cycles or until total failure. Stress X-rays were taken after cyclic loading to evaluate screw loosening.
RESULTS: Test group 1 showed a significant higher number of load cycles until failure for augmented screws compared to the control (4030 cycles, SD 827.8 vs. 1893.3 cycles, SD 1032.1; p < 0.001). Stress X-rays revealed significant less screw toggling for the augmented screws (5.2°, SD 5.4 vs. 16.1°, SD 5.9; p < 0.001). Test group 2 showed 3653.3 (SD 934) and 3723.3 (SD 560.6) load cycles until failure for in situ and cement first augmentation. Stress X-rays revealed a screw toggling of 5.1 (SD 1.9) and 6.6 (SD 4.6) degrees for in situ and cement first augmentation techniques (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Augmentation of pedicle screws in general significantly increased the number of load cycles and failure load comparing to the nonaugmented control group. For the augmentation technique (cement first, in situ augmented, percutaneously application) no effect could be exhibited on the failure of the pedicle screws. By the cranio-caudal cyclic loading failure of the pedicle screws occurred by screw cut through the superior endplate and the characteristic "windshield-wiper effect", typically observed in clinical practice, could be reproduced.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanical investigation; Cadaver study; Cannulated screws; Cement augmentation; Cyclic loading; Load measurement; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic fractures; Revision surgery; Spinal fusion; Spine

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25813011     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3904-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  27 in total

1.  2000 Volvo Award winner in biomechanical studies: Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterized internal spinal fixation device.

Authors:  A Rohlmann; F Graichen; U Weber; G Bergmann
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  [Bone densitometry by dual energy methods].

Authors:  D Felsenberg; W Gowin
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in the treatment of malignant vertebral fractures.

Authors:  S Masala; P Lunardi; R Fiori; G Liccardo; F Massari; A Ursone; G Simonetti
Journal:  J Chemother       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.714

4.  Comparison of loads on internal spinal fixation devices measured in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  A Rohlmann; G Bergmann; F Graichen; U Weber
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.242

5.  Stress distribution and micromotion analyses of immediately loaded implants of varying lengths in the mandible and fibular bone grafts: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Authors:  Jacqueline Chia-Hsuan Wu; Chen-Sheng Chen; Shing-Wai Yip; Ming-Lun Hsu
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  A method for the fatigue testing of pedicle screw fixation devices.

Authors:  V K Goel; J M Winterbottom; J N Weinstein
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  The effect of in situ augmentation on implant anchorage in proximal humeral head fractures.

Authors:  Stefan Unger; Stefanie Erhart; Franz Kralinger; Michael Blauth; Werner Schmoelz
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 2.586

8.  Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction.

Authors:  Theodore J Choma; Ferris M Pfeiffer; Ryan W Swope; Jesse P Hirner
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Influence of load carrying on loads in internal spinal fixators.

Authors:  A Rohlmann; F Graichen; G Bergmann
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.712

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

Authors:  Rebecca A Kueny; Jan P Kolb; Wolfgang Lehmann; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Gerd Huber
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  13 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Pedicle screw anchorage of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screws under cyclic loading.

Authors:  Richard A Lindtner; Rene Schmid; Thomas Nydegger; Marko Konschake; Werner Schmoelz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Cortical threaded pedicle screw improves fatigue strength in decreased bone quality.

Authors:  Lukas Weiser; Kay Sellenschloh; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Lennart Viezens; Wolfgang Lehmann; Gerd Huber
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  [Cement augmentation in spinal surgery].

Authors:  Philipp Schleicher; Alexander Wengert; Jonathan Neuhoff; Frank Kandziora
Journal:  Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-05-23

6.  Technical Note: Pedicle Cement Augmentation with Proximal Screw Toggle and Loosening.

Authors:  Wen Jie Choy; William R Walsh; Kevin Phan; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-06-09       Impact factor: 2.071

7.  Augmentation of Pedicle Screws Using Bone Grafting in Patients with Spinal Osteoporosis.

Authors:  A E Bokov; A A Bulkin; I S Bratsev; S Ya Kalinina; S G Mlyavykh; D G Anderson
Journal:  Sovrem Tekhnologii Med       Date:  2021-10-29

8.  Rescue Augmentation: Increased Stability in Augmentation After Initial Loosening of Pedicle Screws.

Authors:  Lukas Weiser; Gerd Huber; Kay Sellenschloh; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Lennart Viezens; Wolfgang Lehmann
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-04-21

9.  Effect of pedicle screw augmentation with a self-curing elastomeric material under cranio-caudal cyclic loading-a cadaveric biomechanical study.

Authors:  Werner Schmoelz; Alexander Keiler; Marko Konschake; Richard A Lindtner; Alessandro Gasbarrini
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Comparison of the Pull-Out Strength between a Novel Micro-Dynamic Pedicle Screw and a Traditional Pedicle Screw in Lumbar Spine.

Authors:  Lei Qian; Weidong Chen; Peng Li; Dongbin Qu; Wenjie Liang; Minghui Zheng; Jun Ouyang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-08-09       Impact factor: 2.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.