Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association (대한정형외과학회지)

Korean Orthopaedic Association (대한정형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Early Failure of Cortical-Bone Screw Fixation in the Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

요추부 협착에서의 피질골 궤도 나사못 고정의 초기 실패 사례에 대한 고찰

  • Kwon, Ji-Won (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Gyu (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ha, Joong-Won (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Seong-Hwan (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Hwan-Mo (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Yung (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • 권지원 (연세대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 김진규 (연세대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 하중원 (연세대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 문성환 (연세대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 이환모 (연세대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실) ;
  • 박융 (연세대학교 의과대학 정형외과학교실)
  • Received : 2019.06.12
  • Accepted : 2019.11.19
  • Published : 2020.10.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Pedicle screw insertion has been traditionally used as a surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spine disease. As an alternative, the cortical-bone trajectory screw allows less invasive posterior lumbar fixation and excellent mechanical stability, as reported in several biomechanical studies. This study evaluated the clinical and radiological results of a case of early failure of cortical-bone screw fixation in posterior fixation and union after posterior decompression. Materials and Methods: This study examined 311 patients who underwent surgical treatment from 2013 to 2018 using cortical orbital screws as an alternative to traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative spinal stenosis and anterior spine dislocation of the lumbar spine. Early fixation failure after surgery was defined as fixation failure, such as loosening, pull-out, and breakage of the screw on computed tomography (CT) and radiographs at a follow-up of six months. Results: Early fixation failure occurred in 46 out of 311 cases (14.8%), screw loosening in 46 cases (14.8%), pull-out in 12 cases (3.9%), and breakage in four cases (1.3%). An analysis of the site where the fixation failure occurred revealed the following, L1 in seven cases (15.2%), L2 in three cases (6.5%), L3 in four cases (8.7%), L4 in four cases (8.7%), L5 in four cases (8.7%), and S1 in 24 cases (52.2%). Among the distal cortical bone screws, fixation failures such as loosening, pull-out, and breakage occurred mainly in the S1 screws. Conclusion: Cortical-bone trajectory screw fixation may be an alternative with comparable clinical outcomes or fewer complications compared to conventional pedicle screw fixation. On the other hand, in case with osteoporosis and no anterior support structure particularly at L5-S1 fusion sites were observed to have result of premature fixation failures such as relaxation, pull-out, and breakage.

목적: 퇴행성 요추부 척추 질환에 대한 수술적 치료로 척추 경 나사못(pedicle screw) 삽입술이 전통적으로 사용되어왔다. 이에 대한 대안으로 제시된 피질골 궤도 나사못(cortical-bone trajectory screw)은 덜 침습적인 후방 요추부 고정이 가능한 점과 몇몇의 생체 역학 연구에서 보고한 우수한 기계적 안정성을 장점으로 가지고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 후방 감압술 후 후방 고정술 및 유합을 시행한 환자에 있어 피질골 궤도 나사못 고정술의 초기 실패에 관한 사례의 임상적 및 방사선적 결과를 알아보고자 함에 있다. 대상 및 방법: 요추의 퇴행성 척추 협착 및 척추 전방 전위에 대한 전통적인 척추 경 나사못 고정을 대안하여 피질골 궤도 나사못을 사용하여 2013년부터 2018년까지 수술적 치료를 시행한 311명의 환자를 대상으로 하였다. 수술 후 조기 고정 실패는 수술 후 6개월째, 외래 추시에서 시행한 컴퓨터 단층촬영(computed tomography) 및 방사선 사진상 나사못의 이완, 이탈 및 파손과 같은 고정 실패가 일어날 시로 정의하였다. 결과: 조기 고정 실패는 311예 중 46예(14.8%), 나사못 이완이 46예(14.8%), 이탈이 12예(3.9%), 파손이 4예(1.3%)에서 발생하였다. 해당 고정 실패가 일어난 부위 분석 시, L1이 7예(15.2%), L2가 3예(6.5%), L3가 4예(8.7%), L4가 4예(8.7%), L5가 4예(8.7%), 그리고 S1이 24예(52.2%)였다. 주로 말단 피질골 궤도 나사못 중에서도 S1 나사못에서 이완, 이탈 및 파손과 같은 고정 실패가 주로 발생하였다. 결론: 피질골 궤도 나사못 고정은 기존의 척추 경 나사못 고정과 비교했을 때 동등한 임상 결과 또는 적은 합병증을 나타낼 수 있는 하나의 대안이 될 수 있으나 골다공증이 있거나 특히 L5-S1 유합부위에서 전방지지구조가 되지 않는 조건일 때, 이완, 이탈, 파손 등의 조기 고정 실패가 나타나는 결과가 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Chao CK, Hsu CC, Wang JL, Lin J. Increasing bending strength and pullout strength in conical pedicle screws: biomechanical tests and finite element analyses. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:130-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318073cc4b
  2. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, DeCoster TA. Depth of insertion of transpedicular vertebral screws into human vertebrae: effect upon screw-vertebra interface strength. J Spinal Disord. 1988;1:287-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-198800140-00002
  3. Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, et al. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. Spine J. 2009;9:366-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2008.07.008
  4. Skinner R, Maybee J, Transfeldt E, Venter R, Chalmers W. Experimental pullout testing and comparison of variables in transpedicular screw fixation. A biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15:195-201. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199003000-00007
  5. Gao H, Zhang R, Jia C, et al. Novel placement of cortical bone trajectory screws in the lumbar spine: a radiographic and cadaveric study. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31:E329-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000651
  6. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E240-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000116
  7. Yuan Q, Han X, Han X, He D, Liu B, Tian W. Krag versus Caudad trajectory technique for pedicle screw insertion in osteoporotic vertebrae: biomechanical comparison and analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:B27-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000431
  8. Glennie RA, Dea N, Kwon BK, Street JT. Early clinical results with cortically based pedicle screw trajectory for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22:972-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2015.01.010
  9. Hoffman H, Verhave B, Jalal MS, Beutler T, Galgano MA, Chin LS. Comparison of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using the midline lumbar fusion technique to traditional pedicle screws: a case-control study. Int J Spine Surg. 2019;13:33-8. https://doi.org/10.14444/6005
  10. Keorochana G, Pairuchvej S, Trathitephun W, Arirachakaran A, Predeeprompan P, Kongtharvonskul J. Comparative outcomes of cortical screw trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion: systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2017;102:340-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.010
  11. Rodriguez A, Neal MT, Liu A, Somasundaram A, Hsu W, Branch CL Jr. Novel placement of cortical bone trajectory screws in previously instrumented pedicles for adjacent-segment lumbar disease using CT image-guided navigation. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E9.
  12. Kaye ID, Prasad SK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS. The cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. JBJS Rev. 2017;5:e13. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00120
  13. Baluch DA, Patel AA, Lullo B, et al. Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E1297-302. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000553
  14. Sakaura H, Miwa T, Yamashita T, Kuroda Y, Ohwada T. Cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus traditional pedicle screw fixation for 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical outcomes for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28:57-62. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.5.SPINE161154
  15. Kowalski RJ, Ferrara LA, Benzel EC. Biomechanics of bone fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;10:E2.
  16. Larson SJ. Biomechanics of spine stabilization: principles and clinical practice. Neurosurgery. 1996;38:226-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-199601000-00055