Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Experimental Study on the Biomechanical Effectiveness of Bone Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screw Fixation with Various Types of Fenestrations

  • Yoon, Sang Hoon (Department of Neurosurgery, Armed Forces Capital Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Sang Hyung (Department of Neurosurgery and Medical Device Development, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jahng, Tae-Ahn (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2021.12.23
  • Accepted : 2022.04.11
  • Published : 2022.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : To analyze the effects of the number and shape of fenestrations on the mechanical strength of pedicle screws and the effects of bone cement augmentation (BCA) on the pull-out strength (POS) of screws used in conventional BCA. Methods : For the control group, a conventional screw was defined as C1, a screw with cannulated end-holes was defined as C2, a C2 screw with six pinholes was defined as C3, and the control group type was set. Among the experimental screws, T1 was designed using symmetrically placed thru-hole type fenestrations with an elliptical shape, while T2 was designed with half-moon (HM)-shaped asymmetrical fenestrations. T3 and T4 were designed with single HM-shaped fenestrations covering three pitches and five pitches, respectively. T5 and T6 were designed with 0.6-mm and 1-mm wider fenestrations than T3. BCA was performed by injecting 3 mL of commercial bone cement in the screw, and mechanical strength and POS tests were performed according to ASTM F1717 and ASTM F543 standards. Synthetic bone (model #1522-505) made of polyurethane foam was used as a model of osteoporotic bone, and radiographic examinations were performed using computed tomography and fluoroscopy. Results : In the fatigue test, at 75% ultimate load, fractures occurred 7781 and 9189 times; at 50%, they occurred 36122 and 82067 times; and at 25%, no fractures occurred. The mean ultimate load for each screw type was 219.1±52.39 N for T1, 234.74±15.9 N for T2, 220.70±59.23 N for T3, 216.45±32.4 N for T4, 181.55±54.78 N for T5, and 216.47±29.25 N for T6. In comparison with C1, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T6 showed significantly different ultimate load values (p<0.05). However, when the values for C2 and the fenestrated screws were evaluated with an unpaired t test, the ultimate load value of C2 significantly differed only from that of T2 (p=0.025). The ultimate load value of C3 differed significantly from those of T1 and T2 (C3 vs. T1 : p=0.048; C3 vs. T2 : p<0.001). Linear correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation between the fenestration area and the volume of bone cement (Pearson's correlation coefficient r=0.288, p=0.036). The bone cement volume and ultimate load significantly correlated with each other in linear correlation analysis (r=0.403, p=0.003). Conclusion : Fenestration yielded a superior ultimate load in comparison with standard BCA using a conventional screw. In T2 screws with asymmetrical two-way fenestrations showed the maximal increase in ultimate load. The fenestrated screws can be expected to show a stable position for the formation of the cement mass.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by project for Cooperative R&D between Industry, Academy, and Research Institute funded Korea Ministry of SMEs in 2015 (grants No. S2338912).

References

  1. Abshire BB, McLain RF, Valdevit A, Kambic HE : Characteristics of pullout failure in conical and cylindrical pedicle screws after full insertion and back-out. Spine J 1 : 408-414, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00119-X
  2. Aldini NN, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Giardino R, Greggi T, Parisini P : Pedicular fixation in the osteoporotic spine: a pilot in vivo study on long-term ovariectomized sheep. J Orthop Res 20 : 1217-1224, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00069-4
  3. Amendola L, Gasbarrini A, Fosco M, Simoes CE, Terzi S, De Iure F, et al. : Fenestrated pedicle screws for cement-augmented purchase in patients with bone softening: a review of 21 cases. J Orthop Traumatol 12 : 193-199, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-011-0164-9
  4. Aydogan M, Ozturk C, Karatoprak O, Tezer M, Aksu N, Hamzaoglu A : The pedicle screw fixation with vertebroplasty augmentation in the surgical treatment of the severe osteoporotic spines. J Spinal Disord Tech 22 : 444-447, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31818e0945
  5. Ayers MP, Clift SE, Gheduzzi S : Morsellised sawbones is an acceptable experimental substitute for the in vitro elastic and viscoelastic mechanical characterisation of morsellised cancellous bone undergoing impaction grafting. Med Eng Phys 36 : 26-31, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.08.005
  6. Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R, Kropik K, Aigner N, Ogon M, et al. : Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J 17 : 1462-1469, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0769-8
  7. Bianco RJ, Arnoux PJ, Wagnac E, Mac-Thiong JM, Aubin CE : Minimizing pedicle screw pullout risks: a detailed biomechanical analysis of screw design and placement. Clin Spine Surg 30 : E226-E232, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000151
  8. Bullmann V, Schmoelz W, Richter M, Grathwohl C, Schulte TL : Revision of cannulated and perforated cement-augmented pedicle screws: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 : E932-E939, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6ec60
  9. Burval DJ, McLain RF, Milks R, Inceoglu S : Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32 : 1077-1083, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000261566.38422.40
  10. Calvert KL, Trumble KP, Webster TJ, Kirkpatrick LA : Characterization of commercial rigid polyurethane foams used as bone analogs for implant testing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21 : 1453-1461, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-010-4024-6
  11. Chang MC, Kao HC, Ying SH, Liu CL : Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of cannulated pedicle screws for fixation in osteoporotic spines and comparison of its clinical results and biomechanical characteristics with the needle injection method. J Spinal Disord Tech 26 : 305-315, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318246ae8a
  12. Chang MC, Liu CL, Chen TH : Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of pedicle screw for osteoporotic spinal surgery: a novel technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33 : E317-E324, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816f6c73
  13. Chao KH, Lai YS, Chen WC, Chang CM, McClean CJ, Fan CY, et al. : Biomechanical analysis of different types of pedicle screw augmentation: a cadaveric and synthetic bone sample study of instrumented vertebral specimens. Med Eng Phys 35 : 1506-1512, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.04.007
  14. Charles YP, Pelletier H, Hydier P, Schuller S, Garnon J, Sauleau EA, et al. : Pullout characteristics of percutaneous pedicle screws with different cement augmentation methods in elderly spines: an in vitro biomechanical study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101 : 369-374, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.01.005
  15. Chen LH, Tai CL, Lee DM, Lai PL, Lee YC, Niu CC, et al. : Pullout strength of pedicle screws with cement augmentation in severe osteoporosis: a comparative study between cannulated screws with cement injection and solid screws with cement pre-filling. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12 : 33, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-33
  16. Cho W, Wu C, Erkan S, Kang MM, Mehbod AA, Transfeldt EE : The effect on the pullout strength by the timing of pedicle screw insertion after calcium phosphate cement injection. J Spinal Disord Tech 24 : 116-120, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181dd7961
  17. Choma TJ, Pfeiffer FM, Swope RW, Hirner JP : Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 : E1628-E1632, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182740e56
  18. Cook SD, Barbera J, Rubi M, Salkeld SL, Whitecloud TS 3rd : Lumbosacral fixation using expandable pedicle screws. An alternative in reoperation and osteoporosis. Spine J 1 : 109-114, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00020-1
  19. Costa F, Ortolina A, Galbusera F, Cardia A, Sala G, Ronchi F, et al. : Pedicle screw cement augmentation. A mechanical pullout study on different cement augmentation techniques. Med Eng Phys 38 : 181-186, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.11.020
  20. Elder BD, Lo SF, Holmes C, Goodwin CR, Kosztowski TA, Lina IA, et al. : The biomechanics of pedicle screw augmentation with cement. Spine J 15 : 1432-1445, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.016
  21. Frankel BM, D'Agostino S, Wang C : A biomechanical cadaveric analysis of polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 7 : 47-53, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/07/047
  22. Gaines RW Jr : The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82 : 1458-1476, 2000 https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200010000-00013
  23. Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, Berger-Roscher N, Kienle A, Wilke HJ : Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J 24 : 1005-1016, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3768-6
  24. Gao M, Lei W, Wu Z, Liu D, Shi L : Biomechanical evaluation of fixation strength of conventional and expansive pedicle screws with or without calcium based cement augmentation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 26 : 238-244, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.10.008
  25. Glassman SD, Alegre GM : Adult spinal deformity in the osteoporotic spine: options and pitfalls. Instr Course Lect 52 : 579-588, 2003
  26. Goost H, Deborre C, Wirtz DC, Burger C, Prescher A, Folsch C, et al. : PMMA-augmentation of incompletely cannulated pedicle screws: a cadaver study to determine the benefits in the osteoporotic spine. Technol Health Care 22 : 607-615, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-140815
  27. Hancocks S : Sawbones no longer? Br Dent J 212 : 353, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.316
  28. Hasegawa T, Inufusa A, Imai Y, Mikawa Y, Lim TH, An HS : Hydroxyapatite-coating of pedicle screws improves resistance against pull-out force in the osteoporotic canine lumbar spine model: a pilot study. Spine J 5 : 239-243, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.010
  29. Hsieh MK, Liu MY, Chen JK, Tsai TT, Lai PL, Niu CC, et al. : Biomechanical study of the fixation stability of broken pedicle screws and subsequent strategies. PLoS One 14 : e0219189, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219189
  30. Inceoglu S, Ehlert M, Akbay A, McLain RF : Axial cyclic behavior of the bone-screw interface. Med Eng Phys 28 : 888-893, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.12.009
  31. Krag MH, Weaver DL, Beynnon BD, Haugh LD : Morphometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine related to transpedicular screw placement for surgical spinal fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13 : 27-32, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198801000-00007
  32. Krenn MH, Piotrowski WP, Penzkofer R, Augat P : Influence of thread design on pedicle screw fixation. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 9 : 90-95, 2008 https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI/2008/9/7/090
  33. La Barbera L, Galbusera F, Villa T, Costa F, Wilke HJ : ASTM F1717 standard for the preclinical evaluation of posterior spinal fixators: can we improve it? Proc Inst Mech Eng H 228 : 1014-1026, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411914554244
  34. Leichtle CI, Lorenz A, Rothstock S, Happel J, Walter F, Shiozawa T, et al. : Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Bone Joint Res 5 : 419-426, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.59.2000580
  35. Liu D, Shi L, Lei W, Wei MQ, Qu B, Deng SL, et al. : Biomechanical comparison of expansive pedicle screw and polymethylmethacrylateaugmented pedicle screw in osteoporotic synthetic bone in primary implantation: an experimental study. Clin Spine Surg 29 : E351-E357, 2016 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828bfc85
  36. Liu D, Wu ZX, Pan XM, Fu SC, Gao MX, Shi L, et al. : 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 : 1227-1232, 2011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1290-9
  37. Matthews PG, Phan K, Rao PJ, Ball JR : Pedicle length and degree of slip in lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. Orthop Surg 7 : 108-111, 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12173
  38. Moon BJ, Cho BY, Choi EY, Zhang HY : Polymethylmethacrylateaugmented screw fixation for stabilization of the osteoporotic spine : a three-year follow-up of 37 patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 46 : 305-311, 2009 https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2009.46.4.305
  39. Ono A, Brown MD, Latta LL, Milne EL, Holmes DC : Triangulated pedicle screw construct technique and pull-out strength of conical and cylindrical screws. J Spinal Disord 14 : 323-329, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200108000-00007
  40. Paxinos O, Tsitsopoulos PP, Zindrick MR, Voronov LI, Lorenz MA, Havey RM, et al. : Evaluation of pullout strength and failure mechanism of posterior instrumentation in normal and osteopenic thoracic vertebrae. J Neurosurg Spine 13 : 469-476, 2010 https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.4.SPINE09764
  41. Pinera AR, Duran C, Lopez B, Saez I, Correia E, Alvarez L : Instrumented lumbar arthrodesis in elderly patients: prospective study using cannulated cemented pedicle screw instrumentation. Eur Spine J 20 Suppl 3(Suppl 3) : 408-414, 2011
  42. Polly DW Jr, Orchowski JR, Ellenbogen RG : Revision pedicle screws. Bigger, longer shims--what is best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 : 1374-1379, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199806150-00015
  43. Rohmiller MT, Schwalm D, Glattes RC, Elalayli TG, Spengler DM : Evaluation of calcium sulfate paste for augmentation of lumbar pedicle screw pullout strength. Spine J 2 : 255-260, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00207-3
  44. Saadeh YS, Swong KN, Yee TJ, Strong MJ, Kashlan ON, Szerlip NJ, et al. : Effect of fenestrated pedicle screws with cement augmentation in osteoporotic patients undergoing spinal fusion. World Neurosurg 143 : e351-e361, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.07.154
  45. Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW : Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines. J Neurosurg 96 (3 Suppl) : 309-312, 2002
  46. Schulze M, Riesenbeck O, Vordemvenne T, Raschke MJ, Evers J, Hartensuer R, et al. : Complex biomechanical properties of nonaugmented and augmented pedicle screws in human vertebrae with reduced bone density. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21 : 151, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3158-z
  47. Wuisman PI, Van Dijk M, Staal H, Van Royen BJ : Augmentation of (pedicle) screws with calcium apatite cement in patients with severe progressive osteoporotic spinal deformities: an innovative technique. Eur Spine J 9 : 528-533, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860000169
  48. Yaman O, Demir T, Arslan AK, Iyidiker MA, Tolunay T, Camuscu N, et al. : The comparison of pullout strengths of various pedicle screw designs on synthetic foams and ovine vertebrae. Turk Neurosurg 25 : 532-238, 2015
  49. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH, Thomas JC, Holland WR, Field BT, et al. : A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res (203) : 99-112, 1986