BACKGROUND: To assess whether lumbar pedicle screw placement with a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) vs. open technique imparts different biomechanical parameters and thus may affect failure rates. METHODS: Human cadaveric disarticulated lumbar vertebrae 1-5 were stabilised in cement. Pedicle screws were inserted either via the 'MIS' or 'open' technique, based on previously described anatomical landmarks. Each vertebra had one 'MIS' and one 'open' technique screw. Specimens were tested with an Instron mechanical testing machine, positioned to allow for testing of direct coaxial force. Load was applied until failure occurred, and load-displacement curves generated for each screw. RESULTS: Average failure load was found to be 685±399 N for MIS, versus 661±323 N for open technique (P=0.75). The average ultimate failure load was 748±421 N for MIS, versus 772±326 N for open (P=0.74). Average displacement until failure was 0.95±0.49 mm for MIS as compared to 0.95±0.62 mm for open (P=0.996). Axial stiffness was 936±217 N/mm for MIS and 1,016±263 N/mm for open (P=0.19). Average work required to result in failure was 0.84±1.09 J for MIS and 0.82±1.05 J for open (P=0.94). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the biomechanical properties of the MIS as compared with open lumbar pedicle screws, when tested until failure under direct coaxial force. The clinical implication may be that there is no significant advantage in the biomechanical properties of MIS versus open lumbar pedicle screw insertion techniques. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To assess whether lumbar pedicle screw placement with a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) vs. open technique imparts different biomechanical parameters and thus may affect failure rates. METHODS: Human cadaveric disarticulated lumbar vertebrae 1-5 were stabilised in cement. Pedicle screws were inserted either via the 'MIS' or 'open' technique, based on previously described anatomical landmarks. Each vertebra had one 'MIS' and one 'open' technique screw. Specimens were tested with an Instron mechanical testing machine, positioned to allow for testing of direct coaxial force. Load was applied until failure occurred, and load-displacement curves generated for each screw. RESULTS: Average failure load was found to be 685±399 N for MIS, versus 661±323 N for open technique (P=0.75). The average ultimate failure load was 748±421 N for MIS, versus 772±326 N for open (P=0.74). Average displacement until failure was 0.95±0.49 mm for MIS as compared to 0.95±0.62 mm for open (P=0.996). Axial stiffness was 936±217 N/mm for MIS and 1,016±263 N/mm for open (P=0.19). Average work required to result in failure was 0.84±1.09 J for MIS and 0.82±1.05 J for open (P=0.94). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the biomechanical properties of the MIS as compared with open lumbar pedicle screws, when tested until failure under direct coaxial force. The clinical implication may be that there is no significant advantage in the biomechanical properties of MIS versus open lumbar pedicle screw insertion techniques. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Pedicle screw; insertion technique; lumbar instrumentation; pullout test
Authors: H Mehta; E Santos; C Ledonio; J Sembrano; A Ellingson; P Pare; B Murrell; D J Nuckley Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 2.063