Advertisement

Cement augmentation of odontoid peg fractures: the effect of cement volume and distribution on construct stiffness

  • Lukas Capek
  • Petr Rehousek
  • Petr HenysEmail author
  • Sabri Bleibleh
  • Edward Jenner
  • Marketa Kulvajtova
  • Jiri Skala-Rosenbaum
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The cement augmentation of a conventional anterior screw fixation in type II odontoid process fractures for elderly patients significantly increased stiffness and load to failure under anterior–posterior load in comparison with non-augmented fixation. The amount and quality of bone cement are usually taken ad hoc in clinical practise. In this study, we wanted to clarify the role of bone cement amount and its quality to the stiffness of odontoid and vertebrae body junction.

Methods

Finite-element method was used to achieve different scenarios of cement augmentation. For all models, an initial stiffness was calculated. Model (1) the intact vertebrae were virtually potted into a polymethylmethacrylate base via the posterior vertebral arches. A V-shaped punch was used for loading the odontoid in an anterior–posterior direction. (2) The odontoid fracture type IIa (Anderson–D’Alonzo classification) was achieved by virtual transverse osteotomy. Anterior screw fixation was virtually performed by putting self-drilling titanium alloy 3.5 mm diameter anterior cannulated lag screw with a 12 mm thread into the inspected vertebrae. A V-shaped punch was used for loading the odontoid in an anterior–posterior direction. The vertebrae body was assumed to be non-cemented and cemented with different volume.

Results

The mean cement volume was lowest for body base filling with 0.47 ± 0.03 ml. The standard body filling corresponds to 0.95 ± 0.15 ml. The largest volume corresponds to 1.62 ± 0.12 ml in the presence of cement leakage. The initial stiffness of the intact C2 vertebrae was taken as the reference value. The mean initial stiffness for non-porous cement (E = 3000 MPa) increased linearly (R2 = 0.98). The lowest stiffness (123.3 ± 5.8 N/mm) was measured in the intact C2 vertebrae. However, the highest stiffness (165.2 ± 5.2 N/mm) was measured when cement leakage out of the odontoid peg occurred. The mean initial stiffness of the base-only cemented group was 147.2 ± 8.4 N/mm compared with 157.9 ± 6.6 N/mm for the base and body cemented group. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0061). The mean initial stiffness for porous cement (E = 500 MPa) remains constant. Therefore, there is no difference between cemented and non-cemented junction. This difference was not statistically significant (p < 0.18).

Conclusion

The present study showed that the low porous cement was able to significantly influence the stiffness of the augmented odontoid screw fixation in vitro, although further in vivo clinical studies should be undertaken. Our results suggest that only a small amount of non-porous cement is needed to restore stiffness at least to its pre-fracture level and this can be achieved with the injection of 0.7–1.2 ml of cement.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Fracture Spine Finite element Bone cement Odontoid 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Charles University Grant Agency (GAUK) no. 816016.

Funding

The manuscript has not previously been published in print or electronic form and is not under consideration by another publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that there is no ethical problem or conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6286_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (16.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 17105 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hide IG, Gangi A (2004) Percutaneous vertebroplasty: history, technique and current perspectives. Clin Radiol 59(6):461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liebschner MA, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM (2001) Effects of bone cement volume and distribution on vertebral stiffness after vertebroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(14):1547–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohlhof H, Seidel U, Hoppe S, Keel MJ, Benneker LM (2013) Cement-augmented anterior screw fixation of Type II odontoid fractures in elderly patients with osteoporosis. Spine J 13(12):1858–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waschke A, Berger-Roscher N, Kielstein H, Ewald C, Kalff R, Wilke HJ (2015) Cement augmented anterior odontoid screw fixation is biomechanically advantageous in osteoporotic patients with Anderson Type II fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 28(3):E126–E132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt R, Cakir B, Mattes T, Wegener M, Puhl W, Richter M (2005) Cement leakage during vertebroplasty: an underestimated problem? Eur Spine J 14(5):466–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hulme PA, Krebs J, Ferguson SJ, Berlemann U (2006) Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: a systematic review of 69 clinical studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(17):1983–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhan Y, Jiang J, Liao H, Tan H, Yang K (2017) Risk factors for cement leakage after vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty: a meta-analysis of published evidence. World Neurosurg 101:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Van Erkel AR, Dijkstra PD (2011) Cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: identification of risk factors. Spine J 11(9):839–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun HB, Jing XS, Liu YZ, Qi M, Wang XK, Hai Y (2018) The optimal volume fraction in percutaneous vertebroplasty evaluated by pain relief, cement dispersion, and cement leakage: a prospective cohort study of 130 patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture in the thoracolumbar vertebra. World Neurosurg 114:e677–e688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang EZ, Xu JG, Huang GZ, Xiao WZ, Liu XK, Zeng BF et al (2016) Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in aged patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(8):653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berlemann U, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Heini PF (2002) Adjacent vertebral failure after vertebroplasty. A biomechanical investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(5):748–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boszczyk B (2010) Volume matters: a review of procedural details of two randomised controlled vertebroplasty trials of 2009. Eur Spine J 19(11):1837–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rehousek P, Jenner E, Holton J, Czyz M, Capek L, Henys P et al (2018) Biomechanical comparison of cemented versus non-cemented anterior screw fixation in type II odontoid fractures in the elderly: a cadaveric study. Spine J 18(10):1888–1895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goel VK, Nyman E (2016) Computational modeling and finite element analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(Suppl 7):S6–S7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander T, Bergmann G (2007) Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J 16(8):1223–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM (2003) Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech 36(7):897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pauchard Y, Fitze T, Browarnik D, Eskandari A, Enns-Bray W, Pálsson H, Sigurdsson S, Ferguson Stephen J, Harris Tamara B, Gudnason V, Helgason B (2016) Interactive graph-cut segmentation for fast creation of finite element models from clinical CT data for hip fracture prediction. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 19(16):1693–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC et al (2006) User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31(3):1116–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pal D, Sell P, Grevitt M (2011) Type II odontoid fractures in the elderly: an evidence-based narrative review of management. Eur Spine J 20(2):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Löhrer L, Raschke MJ, Thiesen D, Hartensuer R, Surke C, Ochman S et al (2012) Current concepts in the treatment of Anderson type II odontoid fractures in the elderly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Injury 43(4):462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daniels AH, Magee W, Badra M, Bay B, Hettwer W, Hart RA (2012) Preliminary biomechanical proof of concept for a hybrid locking plate/variable pitch screw construct for anterior fixation of type II odontoid fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(19):E1159–E1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Jasper LE, Deramond H (2001) The biomechanics of vertebroplasty. The effect of cement volume on mechanical behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(14):1537–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo J, Daines L, Charalambous A, Adams MA, Annesley-Williams DJ, Dolan P (2009) Vertebroplasty: only small cement volumes are required to normalize stress distributions on the vertebral bodies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(26):2865–2873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lador R, Dreiangel N, Ben-Galim PJ, Hipp JA (2010) A pictorial classification atlas of cement extravasation with vertebral augmentation. Spine J 10(12):1118–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Belkoff SM, Molloy S (2003) Temperature measurement during polymerization of polymethylmethacrylate cement used for vertebroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(14):1555–1559Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teo JCM, Teoh SH (2012) Permeability study of vertebral cancellous bone using micro- computational fluid dynamics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 15:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kurutza M, Vargab P, Jakab G (2019) Prophylactic vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty in osteoporosis: A comprehensive biomechanical matched-pair study by in vitro compressive testing. Med Eng Phys 65:45–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Capek
    • 1
  • Petr Rehousek
    • 2
    • 3
  • Petr Henys
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sabri Bleibleh
    • 2
  • Edward Jenner
    • 2
  • Marketa Kulvajtova
    • 3
  • Jiri Skala-Rosenbaum
    • 3
  1. 1.Technical University of LiberecLiberecCzechia
  2. 2.Royal Orthopaedic HospitalBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Third Faculty of MedicineCharles University, PraguePraha 10Czechia

Personalised recommendations