Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 46–53 | Cite as

Comparison of revision strategies for failed C2-posterior cervical pedicle screws: a biomechanical study

  • Michael Mayer
  • Juliane Zenner
  • Robert Bogner
  • Wolfgang Hitzl
  • Markus Figl
  • Arvind von Keudell
  • Daniel Stephan
  • Rainer Penzkofer
  • Peter Augat
  • Gundobert Korn
  • Herbert Resch
  • Heiko Koller
Original Article

Abstract

Study purpose

With increasing usage within challenging biomechanical constructs, failures of C2 posterior cervical pedicle screws (C2-pCPSs) will occur. The purpose of the study was therefore to investigate the biomechanical characteristics of two revision techniques after the failure of C2-pCPSs.

Materials and methods

Twelve human C2 vertebrae were tested in vitro in a biomechanical study to compare two strategies for revision screws after failure of C2-pCPSs. C2 pedicles were instrumented using unicortical 3.5-mm CPS bilaterally (Synapse/Synthes, Switzerland). Insertion accuracy was verified by fluoroscopy. C2 vertebrae were potted and fixed in an electromechanical testing machine with the screw axis coaxial to the pullout direction. Pullout testing was conducted with load and displacement data taken continuously. The peak load to failure was measured in newtons (N) and is reported as the pullout resistance (POR). After pullout, two revision strategies were tested in each vertebra. In Group-1, revision was performed with 4.0-mm C2-pCPSs. In Group-2, revision was performed with C2-pedicle bone-plastic combined with the use of a 4-mm C2-pCPSs. For the statistical analysis, the POR between screws was compared using absolute values (N) and the POR of the revision techniques normalized to that of the primary procedures (%).

Results

The POR of primary 3.5-mm CPSs was 1,140.5 ± 539.6 N for Group-1 and 1,007.7 ± 362.5 N for Group-2; the difference was not significant. In the revision setting, the POR in Group-1 was 705.8 ± 449.1 N, representing a reduction of 38.1 ± 32.9 % compared with that of primary screw fixation. For Group-2, the POR was 875.3 ± 367.9 N, representing a reduction of 13.1 ± 23.4 %. A statistical analysis showed a significantly higher POR for Group-2 compared with Group-1 (p = 0.02). Although the statistics showed a significantly reduced POR for both revision strategies compared with primary fixation (p < 0.001/p = 0.001), the loss of POR (in %) in Group-1 was significantly higher compared with the loss in Group-2 (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Using a larger-diameter screw combined with the application of a pedicle bone-plastic, the POR can be significantly increased compared with the use of only an increased screw diameter.

Keywords

Cervical pedicle screw Failure Revision strategy Biomechanics Pedicle bone-plastic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Corporate/industry funds were received in support of this work. Supported by a grant from Synthes/Switzerland. No personal benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Approval of Institutional Review Board: This statement confirms that the study entitled “Comparison of revision strategies for failed C2-posterior cervical pedicle screws - A biomechanical study” has been approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Abumi K, Itoh H, Taneichi H, Kaneda K (1994) Transpedicular screw fixation for traumatic lesions of the middle and lower cervical spine: description of the techniques and preliminary report. J Spinal Disord 7(1):19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abumi K, Kaneda K (1997) Pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(16):1853–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abumi K, Shono Y, Ito M et al (2000) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(8):962–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alosh H, Parker SL, McGirt MJ et al (2010) Preoperative radiographic factors and surgeon experience are associated with cortical breach of C2 pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(1):9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cardoso MJ, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson MD et al (2009) Using lamina screws as a salvage technique at C-7: computed tomography and biomechanical analysis using cadaveric vertebrae. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 11(1):28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choueka J, Spivak JM, Kummer FJ, Steger T (1996) Flexion failure of posterior cervical lateral mass screws. Influence of insertion technique and position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(4):462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dmitriev AE, Lehman RA Jr, Helgeson MD et al (2009) Acute and long-term stability of atlantoaxial fixation methods: a biomechanical comparison of pars, pedicle, and intralaminar fixation in an intact and odontoid fracture model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(4):365–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashemi A, Bednar D, Ziada S (2009) Pullout strength of pedicle screws augmented with particulate calcium phosphate: an experimental study. Spine J 9(5):404–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heller JG, Silcox DH III, Sutterlin CE III (1995) Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(22):2442–2448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirano K, Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y et al (2010) Surgical complications and management of occipitothoracic fusion for cervical destructive lesions in RA patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(2):121–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirano T, Hasegawa K, Takahashi HE et al (1997) Structural characteristics of the pedicle and its role in screw stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(21):2504–2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holly LT, Foley KT (2006) Percutaneous placement of posterior cervical screws using three-dimensional fluoroscopy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(5):536–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hong JT, Tomoyuki T, Udayakumar R, Espinoza Orias AA, Inoue N, An HS (2011) Biomechanical comparison of three different types of C7 fixation techniques. Spine 36:393–398. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d345e0 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hostin RA, Wu C, Perra JH et al (2008) A biomechanical evaluation of three revision screw strategies for failed lateral mass fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(22):2415–2421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnston TL, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Marcu D (2006) Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths. Spine J 6(6):667–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC (1997) Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(9):977–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamimura M, Ebara S, Itoh H et al (2000) Cervical pedicle screw insertion: assessment of safety and accuracy with computer-assisted image guidance. J Spinal Disord 13(3):218–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines RW Jr (1997) Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(5):493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karaikovic EE, Yingsakmongkol W, Gaines RW Jr (2001) Accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement using the funnel technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(22):2456–2462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiner DW, Wybo CD, Sterba W et al (2008) Biomechanical analysis of different techniques in revision spinal instrumentation: larger diameter screws versus cement augmentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(24):2618–2622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koller H, Acosta F, Tauber M et al (2008) Cervical anterior transpedicular screw fixation (ATPS)–Part II. Accuracy of manual insertion and pull-out strength of ATPS. Eur Spine J 17(4):539–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koller H, Hitzl W, Acosta F et al (2009) In vitro study of accuracy of cervical pedicle screw insertion using an electronic conductivity device (ATPS part III). Eur Spine J 18(9):1300–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kothe R, Ruther W, Schneider E, Linke B (2004) Biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1869–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehman RA Jr, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson MD et al (2008) Salvage of C2 pedicle and pars screws using the intralaminar technique: a biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(9):960–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Traynelis VC et al (2002) Posterior cervical fixation using a new polyaxial screw and rod system: technique and surgical results. Neurosurg Focus 12(1):E8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Kamiya M, Yanase M, Ito K, Machino M, Yoshida G, Ishikawa Y, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2012) Complications of cervical pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions: a multicenter study of 84 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 16:238–247. doi: 10.3171/2011.11.SPINE11102 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Garces-Ambrossi GL et al (2009) Translaminar versus pedicle screw fixation of C2: comparison of surgical morbidity and accuracy of 313 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 64(5 Suppl 2):343–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pfeifer BA, Krag MH, Johnson C (1994) Repair of failed transpedicle screw fixation. A biomechanical study comparing polymethylmethacrylate, milled bone, and matchstick bone reconstruction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(3):350–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Polly DW Jr, Orchowski JR, Ellenbogen RG (1998) Revision pedicle screws. Bigger, longer shims–what is best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(12):1374–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rhee JM, Kraiwattanapong C, Hutton WC (2005) A comparison of pedicle and lateral mass screw construct stiffnesses at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(21):E636–E640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmidt R, Koller H, Wilke HJ et al (2010) The impact of cervical pedicle screws for primary stability in multilevel posterior cervical stabilizations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(22):E1167–E1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmidt R, Wilke HJ, Claes L, Puhl W, Richter M (2003) Pedicle screws enhance primary stability in multilevel cervical corpectomies: biomechanical in vitro comparison of different implants including constrained and nonconstrained posterior instumentations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(16):1821–1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Kim J et al (2003) Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine reconstructive techniques after a multilevel corpectomy of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(20):2352–2358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tomasino A, Parikh K, Koller H et al (2010) The vertebral artery and the cervical pedicle: morphometric analysis of a critical neighborhood. J Neurosurg Spine 13(1):52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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):148–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xu R, Nadaud MC, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting RA (1995) Morphology of the second cervical vertebra and the posterior projection of the C2 pedicle axis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(3):259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yoshimoto H, Sato S, Hyakumachi T, Yanagibashi Y, Masuda T (2005) Spinal reconstruction using a cervical pedicle screw system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (431):111–119Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yukawa Y, Kato F, Yoshihara H, Yanase M, Ito K (2006) Cervical pedicle screw fixation in 100 cases of unstable cervical injuries: pedicle axis views obtained using fluoroscopy. J Neurosurg Spine 5(6):488–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Mayer
    • 1
  • Juliane Zenner
    • 2
  • Robert Bogner
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Hitzl
    • 3
  • Markus Figl
    • 4
  • Arvind von Keudell
    • 1
  • Daniel Stephan
    • 5
    • 6
  • Rainer Penzkofer
    • 5
    • 6
  • Peter Augat
    • 5
    • 6
  • Gundobert Korn
    • 1
  • Herbert Resch
    • 1
  • Heiko Koller
    • 2
  1. 1.Department for Traumatology and Sports InjuriesParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria
  2. 2.German Scoliosis Center Bad Wildungen, Werner-Wicker-KlinikBad WildungenGermany
  3. 3.Research Office, BiostatisticsParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria
  4. 4.Department for TraumatologyGeneral HospitalTullnAustria
  5. 5.Institute of BiomechanicsTrauma Center MurnauMurnauGermany
  6. 6.Institute of BiomechanicsParacelsus Medical UniversitySalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations