Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines
- 680 Downloads
This is an experimental study on human cadaver spines. The objective of this study is to compare the pullout forces between three screw augmentation methods and two different screw designs. Surgical interventions of patients with osteoporosis increase following the epidemiological development. Biomechanically the pedicle provides the strongest screw fixation in healthy bone, whereas in osteoporosis all areas of the vertebra are affected by the disease. This explains the high screw failure rates in those patients. Therefore PMMA augmentation of screws is often mandatory. This study involved investigation of the pullout forces of augmented transpedicular screws in five human lumbar spines (L1–L4). Each spine was treated with four different methods: non-augmented unperforated (solid) screw, perforated screw with vertebroplasty augmentation, solid screw with vertebroplasty augmentation and solid screw with balloon kyphoplasty augmentation. Screws were augmented with Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). The pullout forces were measured for each treatment with an Instron testing device. The bone mineral density was measured for each vertebra with Micro-CT. The statistical analysis was performed with a two-sided independent student t test. Forty screws (10 per group and level) were inserted. The vertebroplasty-augmented screws showed a significant higher pullout force (mean 918.5 N, P = 0.001) than control (mean 51 N), the balloon kyphoplasty group did not improve the pullout force significantly (mean 781 N, P > 0.05). However, leakage occurred in some cases treated with perforated screws. All spines showed osteoporosis on Micro-CT. Vertebroplasty-augmented screws, augmentation of perforated screws and balloon kyphoplasty augmented screws show higher pullout resistance than non-augmented screws. Significant higher pullout forces were only reached in the vertebroplasty augmented vertebra. The perforated screw design led to epidural leakage due to the position of the perforation in the screw. The position of the most proximal perforation is critical, depending on screw design and proper insertion depth. Nevertheless, using a properly designed perforated screw will facilitate augmentation and instrumentation in osteoporotic spines.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Screw augmentation Perforated screws Vertebroplasty Balloon kyphoplasty Transpedicular fixation/stabilization
The authors thank several people for their contribution and advice for this work: G. Zanoni from the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Vienna; I. Boecken, D. Beer, R. Egger and B. Schenk, Synthes, Bettlach, Switzerland and L. Kaufman, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium for advising on the statistical analysis. The study was financed from a grant from Synthes (Bettlach, Switzerland).
- 7.Crafts NFR (1997) The human development index and changes in standards of living: some historical comparisons. Eur Rev Econ Hist 1:299–322Google Scholar
- 14.Healey JH, Vigorita VJ, Lane JM (1985) The coexistence and characteristics of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg 67-A:586–592Google Scholar
- 16.Herzig M Das Festigkeitsverhalten transpedikulärer Fixationssysteme für die lumbale Wirbelsäule im zyklisch-dynamischen Dauerversuch (2004) German National Library. http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=971004986urn:nbn:de:hbz:061-20040418-000797-5. Accessed Jan 2008
- 24.Linhardt O, Lüring C, Matussek J, Hamberger C, Herold T, Plitz W et al (2006) Stability of anterior vertebral body screws after kyphoplasty augmentation. An experimental study to compare anterior vertebral body screw fixation in soft and cured kyphoplasty cement. Int Orthop 30(5):366–370. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0100-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Linhardt O, Lüring C, Matussek J, Hamberger C, Plitz W, Grifka J (2006) Stability of pedicle screws after kyphoplasty augmentation: an experimental study to compare transpedicular screw fixation in soft and cured kyphoplasty cement. J Spinal Disord Tech 19(2):87–91. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000177212.52583.bd PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.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. doi: 10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00078-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW (2002) Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines. Neurosurg 96(3 Suppl):309–312Google Scholar
- 40.Weinstein JN, Rydevik BL, Rauschning W (1992) Anatomic and technical considerations of pedicle screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res (284):34–46Google Scholar