Can cavity-based pedicle screw augmentation decrease screw loosening? A biomechanical in vitro study
Tóm tắt
In an osteoporotic vertebral body, cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation could possibly be optimized by the creation of an initial cavity. The aim of this study is to compare three test groups with regard to their loosening characteristics under cyclic loading. Eighteen human, osteoporotic spine segments were divided in three groups. Flexibility tests and cyclic loading tests were performed with an internal fixator. The screws were fixed after creation a cavity and with cement (cavity-augmented group), without cavity and with cement (augmented group), and without cavity and without cement (control group). Cyclic loading up to 100,000 cycles was applied with a complex loading protocol. Screw loosening was measured with flexibility tests after implantation and after cyclic loading. Cement distribution was visualized from CT scans. In all groups, range of motion increased during cyclic loading, representing significant screw loosening after 100,000 cycles. In both augmented groups, screw loosening was less pronounced than in the control group. The cavity-augmented group showed only a slight tendency of screw loosening, but with smaller variations compared to both other groups. This may be explained with a trend for a more equal and homogeneous cement volume around each tip for the cavity-augmented group. This study demonstrated that creating a cavity may allow a more equal fixation of all pedicle screws with slight reduction of loosening. However, augmentation only through a cannulated screw is almost equivalent, if care is taken that enough cement volume can be pushed out around the tip of the screw.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, Berger-Roscher N, Kienle A, Wilke HJ (2015) Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3768-6
Reginster JY, Burlet N (2006) Osteoporosis: a still increasing prevalence. Bone 38(2 Suppl 1):S4-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2005.11.024
Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation A selected survey of ABS members. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(15):2231–2238 (discussion 2238-2239)
Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, Whitecloud TS 3rd, Cook SD (1994) Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(21):2415–2420
Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K (2001) Influence of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation: a study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. Spine J 1(6):402–407
Ponnusamy KE, Iyer S, Gupta G, Khanna AJ (2011) Instrumentation of the osteoporotic spine: biomechanical and clinical considerations. Spine J 11(1):54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.09.024
Paxinos O, Tsitsopoulos PP, Zindrick MR, Voronov LI, Lorenz MA, Havey RM, Patwardhan AG (2010) Evaluation of pullout strength and failure mechanism of posterior instrumentation in normal and osteopenic thoracic vertebrae. J Neurosurg Spine 13(4):469–476. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.4.SPINE09764
Cook SD, Salkeld SL, Stanley T, Faciane A, Miller SD (2004) Biomechanical study of pedicle screw fixation in severely osteoporotic bone. Spine J 4(4):402–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2003.11.010
Weiser L, Huber G, Sellenschloh K, Viezens L, Puschel K, Morlock MM, Lehmann W (2018) Time to augment?! Impact of cement augmentation on pedicle screw fixation strength depending on bone mineral density. Eur Spine J 27(8):1964–1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5660-7
DeWald CJ, Stanley T (2006) Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(19 Suppl):S144-151. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000236893.65878.39
United Nations (2015) World population prospects: the 2015 revision. Department of economic and social affairs, population division. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-2015-revision.html
Melton LJ 3rd, Atkinson EJ, O’Connor MK, O’Fallon WM, Riggs BL (1998) Bone density and fracture risk in men. J Bone Miner Res 13(12):1915–1923. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.1998.13.12.1915
Melton LJ 3rd, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C, Lane AW, Riggs BL (2005) How many women have osteoporosis? JBMR Anniversary Classic. JBMR J Bone Miner Res 20(5):886–892. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.2005.20.5.886
Kanis JA, Johnell O (2005) Requirements for DXA for the management of osteoporosis in Europe. Osteoporos Int 16(3):229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-004-1811-2
Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R, Kropik K, Aigner N, Ogon M, Redl H (2008) Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J 17(11):1462–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0769-8
Hasegawa T, Inufusa A, Imai Y, Mikawa Y, Lim TH, An HS (2005) Hydroxyapatite-coating of pedicle screws improves resistance against pull-out force in the osteoporotic canine lumbar spine model: a pilot study. Spine J 5(3):239–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.010
Pfeiffer FM, Abernathie DL, Smith DE (2006) A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: a study using tapped and untapped pilot holes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(23):E867-870. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000244658.35865.59
Wittenberg RH, Lee KS, Shea M, White AA 3rd, Hayes WC (1993) Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. Clin Orthop Relat Res 296:278–287
Wu ZX, Gong FT, Liu L, Ma ZS, Zhang Y, Zhao X, Yang M, Lei W, Sang HX (2012) A comparative study on screw loosening in osteoporotic lumbar spine fusion between expandable and conventional pedicle screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(4):471–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1439-6
Zdeblick T, Kunz D, Cooke MR M (1993) Pedicle screw pullout strength correlation with insertional torque. Spine 18(12):1673–1676
Weiser L, Dreimann M, Huber G, Sellenschloh K, Puschel K, Morlock MM, Rueger JM, Lehmann W (2016) Cement augmentation versus extended dorsal instrumentation in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures: a biomechanical comparison. Bone Joint J 98-B(8):1099–1105. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37413
Liu D, Wu ZX, Pan XM, Fu SC, Gao MX, Shi L, Lei W (2011) Biomechanical comparison of different techniques in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: expansive pedicle screw versus polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(9):1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1290-9
Hoppe S, Keel MJ (2017) Pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic spine: indications, limitations and technical aspects. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 43(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0750-x
Chao KH, Lai YS, Chen WC, Chang CM, McClean CJ, Fan CY, Chang CH, Lin LC, Cheng CK (2013) Biomechanical analysis of different types of pedicle screw augmentation: a cadaveric and synthetic bone sample study of instrumented vertebral specimens. Med Eng Phys 35(10):1506–1512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.04.007
Kueny RA, Kolb JP, Lehmann W, Puschel K, Morlock MM, Huber G (2014) Influence of the screw augmentation technique and a diameter increase on pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine: pullout versus fatigue testing. Eur Spine J 23(10):2196–2202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3476-7
Lindtner RA, Schmid R, Nydegger T, Konschake M, Schmoelz W (2018) Pedicle screw anchorage of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screws under cyclic loading. Eur Spine J 27(8):1775–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5538-8
Burval DJ, McLain RF, Milks R, Inceoglu S (2007) Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(10):1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000261566.38422.40
Evans SL, Hunt CM, Ahuja S (2002) Bone cement or bone substitute augmentation of pedicle screws improves pullout strength in posterior spinal fixation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 13(12):1143–1145
Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW (2002) Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines. J Neurosurg 96(3 Suppl):309–312
Choma TJ, Pfeiffer FM, Swope RW, Hirner JP (2012) Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(26):E1628-1632. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182740e56
Bostelmann R, Keiler A, Steiger HJ, Scholz A, Cornelius JF, Schmoelz W (2017) Effect of augmentation techniques on the failure of pedicle screws under cranio-caudal cyclic loading. Eur Spine J 26(1):181–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3904-3
Chang MC, Liu CL, Chen TH (2008) Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of pedicle screw for osteoporotic spinal surgery: a novel technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(10):E317-324. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816f6c73
Fransen P (2007) Increasing pedicle screw anchoring in the osteoporotic spine by cement injection through the implant. Technical note and report of three cases. J Neurosurg Spine 7(3):366–369. https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/09/366
Schmoelz W, Keiler A, Konschake M, Lindtner RA, Gasbarrini A (2018) Effect of pedicle screw augmentation with a self-curing elastomeric material under cranio-caudal cyclic loading-a cadaveric biomechanical study. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):251. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0958-z
Sandmann GH, Stockle U, Freude T, Stuby FM (2018) Balloon guided cement augmentation of iliosacral screws in the treatment of insufficiency fractures of the sacrum - description of a new method and preliminary results. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 85(2):85–88
Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L (2000) Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg 92(1 Suppl):87–92
Wilke HJ, Kaiser D, Volkheimer D, Hackenbroch C, Puschel K, Rauschmann M (2016) A pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system provide similar primary and long-term stability: a biomechanical in vitro study with quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions. Eur Spine J 25(9):2919–2928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4679-x
Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7(2):148–154
Krag MH (1976) (1991) Biomechanics of thoracolumbar spinal fixation. Rev Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(3 Suppl):S84-99
Wilke HJ, Claes L, Schmitt H, Wolf S (1994) A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation. Eur Spine J 3(2):91–97
Kettler A, Schmoelz W, Shezifi Y, Ohana N, Ben-Arye A, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2006) Biomechanical performance of the new BeadEx implant in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures: restoration and maintenance of height and stability. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 21(7):676–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.02.005
Wilke HJ, Mehnert U, Claes LE, Bierschneider MM, Jaksche H, Boszczyk BM (2006) Biomechanical evaluation of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty with polymethyl methacrylate or calcium phosphate cement under cyclic loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(25):2934–2941. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000248423.28511.44
Wilke H-J, Jungkunz B, Wenger K, Claes LE (1998) Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular-deformation rate, and moisture condition. Anat Rec 251(1):15–19
Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T, Halm H (2001) Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg 67(2):157–163
Brasiliense LB, Lazaro BC, Reyes PM, Newcomb AG, Turner JL, Crandall DG, Crawford NR (2013) Characteristics of immediate and fatigue strength of a dual-threaded pedicle screw in cadaveric spines. Spine J 13(8):947–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.010
Choma TJ, Frevert WF, Carson WL, Waters NP (2011) Pfeiffer FM (2011) Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screws in osteoporotic bone with bioactive cement augmentation using simulated in vivo multicomponent loading. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(6):454–462. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d449ec
Liebsch C, Zimmermann J, Graf N, Schilling C, Wilke HJ, Kienle A (2018) In vitro validation of a novel mechanical model for testing the anchorage capacity of pedicle screws using physiological load application. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 77:578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.10.030