Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2249–2255 | Cite as

Biomechanical characteristics of cement/gelatin mixture for prevention of cement leakage in vertebral augmentation

  • Bin Meng
  • Ming Qian
  • Shao-Xiang Xia
  • Hui-Lin Yang
  • Zong-Ping LuoEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated whether or not the addition of gelatin micro-particles into the polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) could reduce cement infiltration in cancellous bone of vertebra.

Methods

Gelatin micro-particles were prepared in various sizes and mixed with PMMA in different densities. Dynamic viscosity of the mixture was measured by a rotational rheometer. Fresh bovine vertebral bodies were sectioned into cylindrical samples. Permeability of the mixture through the samples was tested on a mechanical test machine, and calculated using Darcy’s law. The PMMA/gelatin mixture also underwent compressive and bending tests, and their structures were examined by scanning electron microscopy.

Results

The cement/gelatin mixture increased the viscosity. Significant reduction of cement permeability in cancellous bone was determined after the addition of the micro-particles. Micro-particles of 2 % in density and 125–250 μm in size decreased the permeability by 1/3 without any significant change of the cement viscosity. The biomechanical strength was unchanged in compression but decreased by up to 20 % in bending.

Conclusions

Gelatin micro-particles significantly increased the cement viscosity, reduced the permeability in cancellous bone of vertebra, decreased the flexural strength, but did not affect the compressive strength. Although it suggested a manageable approach in vertebral augmentation, the outcome should be further verified on a cadaveric model or an animal model before the mixture could be used safely and effectively in the clinical treatment.

Keywords

PMMA Gelatin Vertebra Augmentation Biomechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11072165, 81071451 & 31270995).

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Bhatia C, Barzilay Y, Krishna M et al (2006) Cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty: effect of preinjection gelfoam embolization. Spine 31:915–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ryu KS, Shim JH, Heo HY et al (2010) Therapeutic efficacy of injectable calcium phosphate cement in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: prospective nonrandomized controlled study at 6-month follow-up. World Neurosurg 73:408–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar K, Nguyen R, Bishop S (2010) A comparative analysis of the results of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Neurosurgery 67:171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J et al (2010) Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 376:1085–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qian Z, Sun Z, Yang H et al (2011) Kyphoplasty for the treatment of malignant vertebral compression fractures caused by metastases. J Clin Neurosci 18:763–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotwica Z, Saracen A (2011) Early and long-term outcomes of vertebroplasty for single osteoporotic fractures. Neurol Neurochir Pol 45:431–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirsch AE, Jha RM, Yoo AJ et al (2011) The use of vertebral augmentation and external beam radiation therapy in the multimodal management of malignant vertebral compression fractures. Pain Phys 14:447–458Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ et al (2006) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine 31:1983–2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee MJ, Dumonski M, Cahill P et al (2009) Percutaneous treatment of vertebral compression fractures: a meta-analysis of complications. Spine 34:1228–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stricker K, Orler R, Yen K et al (2004) Severe hypercapnia due to pulmonary embolism of polymethylmethacrylate during vertebroplasty. Anesth Analg 98:1184–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryu KS, Park CK, Kim MC et al (2002) Dose-dependent epidural leakage of polymethylmethacrylate after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. J Neurosurg 96:56–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadjipavlou AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Katonis PG et al (2005) Percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and osteolytic tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1595–1604PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boger A, Heini P, Windolf M et al (2007) Adjacent vertebral failure after vertebroplasty: a biomechanical study of low-modulus PMMA cement. Eur Spine J 16:2118–2125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radcliff KE, Reitman CA, Delasotta LA et al (2010) Pulmonary cement embolization after kyphoplasty: a case report and review of the literature. Spine J 10:e1–e5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baroud G, Wu JZ, Bohner M et al (2003) How to determine the permeability for cement infiltration of osteoporotic cancellous bone. Med Eng Phys 25:283–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nicholas MK, Waters MG, Holford KM et al (2007) Analysis of rheological properties of bone cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:1407–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boger A, Wheeler KD, Schenk B et al (2009) Clinical investigation of PMMA cement viscosity during vertebroplasty. Eur Spine J 18:1272–1278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Persson C, Baleani M, Guandalini L et al (2006) Mechanical effects of the use of vancomycin and meropenem in acrylic bone cement. Acta Orthopaedica 77:617–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cerretani D, Giorgi G, Fornara P et al (2002) The in vitro elution characteristics of vancomycin combined with imipenem-cilastatin in acrylic bone-cements. A pharmacokinetic study. J Arthroplasty 17:619–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shi M, Kretlow JD, Spicer PP et al (2011) Antibiotic-releasing porous polymethylmethacrylate/gelatin/antibiotic constructs for craniofacial tissue engineering. J Control Release 152:196–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bohner M, Gasser B, Baroudb G et al (2003) Theoretical and experimental model to describe the injection of a polymethylmethacrylate cement into a porous structure. Biomaterials 24:2721–2730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Muijs SP, van Erkel AR et al (2010) A clinical comparative study on low versus medium viscosity polymethylmetacrylate bone cement in percutaneous vertebroplasty: viscosity associated with cement leakage. Spine 35:E1037–E1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baroud G, Matsushita C, Samara M et al (2004) Influence of oscillatory mixing on the injectability of three acrylic and two calcium-phosphate bone cements for vertebroplasty. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 68:105–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boger A, Wheeler KD, Schenk B et al (2009) Clinical investigations of polymethylmethacrylate cement viscosity during vertebroplasty and related in vitro measurements. Eur Spine J 18:1272–1278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Belkoff SM, Sanders JC, Jasper LE (2002) The effect of the monomer-to-powder ratio on the material properties of acrylic bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res 63:396–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farrar DF, Rose J (2001) Rheological properties of PMMA bone cements during curing. Biomaterials 22:3005–3013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Habib M, Serhan H, Marchek C et al (2010) Cement leakage and filling pattern study of low viscous vertebroplastic versus high viscous confidence cement. SAS J 26:33Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anselmetti GC, Zoarski G, Manca A et al (2008) Percutaneous vertebroplasty and bone cement leakage: clinical experience with a new high-viscosity bone cement and delivery system for vertebral augmentation in benign and malignant compression fractures. Intervent Radiol 31:937–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kohles SS, Roberts JB, Upton ML et al (2001) Direct perfusion measurements of cancellous bone anisotropic permeability. J Biomech 34:1197–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cerretani D, Giorgi G, Fornara P et al (2002) The in vitro elution characteristics of vancomycin combined with imipenem-cilastatin in acrylic bone-cements. A pharmacokinetic study. J Arthroplasty 17:619–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li M, Liu XD, Liu XY et al (2011) Preparation and ectopic osteoinduction study of macroporous bone substitute with calcium phosphate cements and rhBMP-2 loaded gelatin microspheres. Zhongguo Gu Shang 24:411–415PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bin Meng
    • 1
  • Ming Qian
    • 1
  • Shao-Xiang Xia
    • 1
  • Hui-Lin Yang
    • 1
  • Zong-Ping Luo
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedics of 1st Affiliated Hospital and Orthopedic InstituteSoochow UniversitySuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations