Literature DB >> 28744499

The contribution of the cortical shell to pedicle screw fixation.

Matthew Henry Pelletier1, Nicky Bertollo1, Darweesh Al-Khawaja2, William Robert Walsh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A pedicle screw insertion technique known as "hubbing" involves the removal of cortical bone around the screw insertion with the aim of improving fixation and decreasing screw loosening. However, the efficacy of this procedure relative to bone density and early loading have not been fully explored. The purpose of this study is to establish the contribution of the cortical layer (hubbing), cancellous density, early loading (toggling) in an idealised model. This is an in vitro laboratory study.
METHODS: Synthetic bone blocks with cancellous bulk and a simulated cortical shell were implanted with 6.5 mm pedicle screws. Three key variables were evaluated in this study; density of the simulated bone (10-20 lb/ft3), toggling (±0.5 mm for 10,000 cycles), and the presence or absence of the surrounding cortex (hubbing). Pullout testing after toggling was performed to determine maximum load, stiffness and energy. Results were analyzed to assess interaction and main effects.
RESULTS: Removal of the cortex decreased the pullout loads by approximately 1,100 N after toggling. Toggling in the presence of the cortical shell had no effect. However, once the cortical shell is removed damage to the weaker cancellous bone accumulates and further compromises the fixation.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a cortical layer in the Sawbone model is significant and provides a more realistic model of load sharing. The cortex plays a considerable role in the protection of underlying cancellous bone as well as contributing to initial pullout strength. The results of this study demonstrate a negative synergistic effect when both toggling and hubbing are applied to the weaker bone.

Keywords:  Toggle; cancellous; cortical; hubbing; load sharing; pedicle screw; pullout

Year:  2017        PMID: 28744499      PMCID: PMC5506321          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2017.06.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  47 in total

1.  Comparison of the in vitro holding strengths of conical and cylindrical pedicle screws in a fully inserted setting and backed out 180 degrees.

Authors:  C A Lill; U Schlegel; D Wahl; E Schneider
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  2000-06

2.  The significance of radiolucent zones surrounding pedicle screws. Definition of screw loosening in spinal instrumentation.

Authors:  B Sandén; C Olerud; M Petrén-Mallmin; C Johansson; S Larsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-04

3.  A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: a study using tapped and untapped pilot holes.

Authors:  Ferris M Pfeiffer; Dennis L Abernathie; Douglas E Smith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Early complications of spinal pedicle screw.

Authors:  A A Faraj; J K Webb
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A titanium expandable pedicle screw improves initial pullout strength as compared with standard pedicle screws.

Authors:  Srilakshmi Vishnubhotla; William B McGarry; Andrew T Mahar; Daniel E Gelb
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  An experimental study of a combination method using a pedicle screw and laminar hook for the osteoporotic spine.

Authors:  K Hasegawa; H E Takahashi; S Uchiyama; T Hirano; T Hara; T Washio; T Sugiura; M Youkaichiya; M Ikeda
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results.

Authors:  Panagiotis Korovessis; Zisis Papazisis; Georgios Koureas; Elias Lambiris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Stability of transpedicle screwing for the osteoporotic spine. An in vitro study of the mechanical stability.

Authors:  K Okuyama; K Sato; E Abe; H Inaba; Y Shimada; H Murai
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Pullout strength of pedicle screws augmented with particulate calcium phosphate: an experimental study.

Authors:  Ata Hashemi; Drew Bednar; Samir Ziada
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2008-09-14       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation using novel cannulated cement insertion device.

Authors:  Chad Waits; Douglas Burton; Terence McIff
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Complex biomechanical properties of non-augmented and augmented pedicle screws in human vertebrae with reduced bone density.

Authors:  Martin Schulze; Oliver Riesenbeck; Thomas Vordemvenne; Michael J Raschke; Julia Evers; René Hartensuer; Dominic Gehweiler
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  Laser resonance frequency analysis of pedicle screw stability: A cadaveric model bone study.

Authors:  Daisuke Nakashima; Katsuhiro Mikami; Shunsuke Kikuchi; Masaharu Nishikino; Toshiyuki Kitamura; Noboru Hasegawa; Morio Matsumoto; Masaya Nakamura; Takeo Nagura
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 3.494

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.