Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Zementaugmentation von Pedikelschrauben

Vorteile und Nachteile

Cement augmentation of pedicle screws

Pros and cons

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Zementaugmentation von Pedikelschrauben führt biomechanisch zu einem erhöhten Schraubenhalt im Knochen, kann jedoch auch zu klinischen Komplikationen führen. Die Vor- und Nachteile des Verfahrens werden aus unterschiedlicher klinischer Perspektive diskutiert.

Abstract

Cement augmentation of pedicle screws biomechanically increases screw purchase in the bone. However, clinical complications may occur. The pros and cons of the technique are discussed from different clinical perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4a–e
Abb. 5a,b

Literatur

  1. Blattert TR, Glasmacher S, Siekmann H, Schmidt C, Josten C (2009) Combined vertebral stabilization by means of cement-augmented posterior instrumentation and balloon-kyphoplasty in osteoporotic burst fractures. Eur Spine J 18:S456–S457

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hashemi A, Bednar D, Ziada S (2009) Pullout strength of pedicle screws augmented with particulate calcium phosphate: An experimental study. Spine J 9:404–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tolunay T, Başgül C, Demir T, Yaman ME, Arslan AK (2015) Pullout performance comparison of pedicle screws based on cement application and design parameters. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 229(11):786–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kolb JP, Weiser L, Kueny RA, Huber G, Rueger JM, Lehmann W (2015) Zementaugmenation an der Wirbelsäule. Was ist biomechanisch zu beachten? Orthopade 44(9):672–680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moussazadeh N, Rubin DG, McLaughlin L, Lis E, Bilsky MH, Laufer I (2015) Short-segment percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with cement augmentation for tumor-induced spinal instability. Spine J 15(7):1609–1617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blattert TR, Schnake KJ, Gonschorek O, Working Group Osteoporotic Fractures of the German Trauma Society (2015) Guidelines for non-surgical and surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral body fractures. Eur Spine J 24:S703

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schnake KJ, Hahn P, Franck A, Blattert T, Zimmermann V, Ullrich B, Gonschorek O, Müller M, Katscher S, Hartmann F, AG Osteoporotische Wirbelfrakturen (2013) Development of a classification system (OF-classification) and of a score for therapeutic decision making (OF-score) for osteoporotic thoracolumbar fractures. Eur Spine J 22:S2590

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bullmann V, Schmoelz W, Richter M, Grathwohl C, Schulte TL (2010) Revision of cannulated and perforated cement-augmented pedicle screws: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Spine (Phila Pa 1986) 35(19):E932–E939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blattert TR, Glasmacher S, Riesner HJ, Josten C (2009) Revision characteristics of cement-augmented, cannulated fenestrated pedicle screws in the osteoporotic vertebral body: a biomechanical in vitro investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 11:23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Koreckij T, Park D, Fischgrund J (2014) Minimally invasive spine surgery in the treatment of thoracolumbar and lumbar spine trauma. Neurosurg Focus 37:E11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goost H, Kabir K, Wirtz D, Deborre C, Karius T, Pflugmacher R, Koch EM, Burger C, Fölsch C (2012) PMMA-Augmentation von Pedikelschrauben: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage in Deutschland. Z Orthop Unfall 150:318–323

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blattert T, Katscher S, Josten C (2011) Perkutane Techniken an der Brust- und Lendenwirbelsäule. Unfallchirurg 114:17–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hu M, Wu H, Chang M, Yu WK, Wang ST, Liu CL (2011) Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of the pedicle screw: the cement distribution in the vertebral body. Eur Spine J 20:1281–1288

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Janssen I, Ryang Y, Gempt J et al (2015) Risk of cement extravasation and pulmonary embolism by bone cement augmented pedicle screw fixation of the thoracolumbar spine. Eur Spine J 24:S2623

    Google Scholar 

  15. Müller J, Baldauf J, Marx S (2016) Cement leakage in pedicle screw augmentation: a prospective analysis of 98 patients and 474 augmented pedicle screws. J Neurosurg Spine 4:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  16. Quante M, Halm H (2012) Does pedicle screw augmentation with cement deteriorate complication rate and clinical results in correction spondylodesis of adult scoliosis? Eur Spine J 21:S2325

    Google Scholar 

  17. Simon M, Halm H, Quante M (2015) Complications and results of cement-augmented pedicle screws in complex corrective spondylodesis – a 2‑year follow-up of a matched-pair control study. Eur Spine J 24:S2623

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Wirbelsäulentherapie, Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Europa-Allee 1, 90763, Fürth, Deutschland

    K. J. Schnake

  2. Wirbelsäulenchirurgie und Traumatologie, Orthopädische Fachklinik Schwarzach, Dekan-Graf-Straße 2–6, 94374, Schwarzach, Deutschland

    T. R. Blattert

  3. Orthopädische Klinik II – Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, St. Franziskus-Hospital, Hohenzollernring 72, 48145, Münster, Deutschland

    U. Liljenqvist

Authors
  1. K. J. Schnake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. R. Blattert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Liljenqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. J. Schnake.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

K. Schnake weist auf folgende Beziehungen hin: Vortrags-/Kurshonorare von AOSpine und Medtronic. T. Blattert weist auf folgende Beziehungen hin: Vortrags-/Kurshonorare von Aesculap, AOSpine und Medtronic. U. Liljenqvist gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schnake, K.J., Blattert, T.R. & Liljenqvist, U. Zementaugmentation von Pedikelschrauben. Orthopäde 45, 755–759 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-016-3315-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-016-3315-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation