The objective of the study was to investigate the influence of bone cement, length of burr hole and bone density on pullout force and insertional screw torque of cervical spine facet screws. Both facets of 24 human cervical vertebrae were scanned for bone mineral density (BMD) and assigned to two groups for measuring of insertional screw torque and pullout strength. Maximal insertional screw torque was measured and removal of the screws was performed in displacement control (0.25 mm/s) without bone cement (PMMA), with 0.1 ml of PMMA and with the burr hole completely filled with PMMA. Screw torque was 59.1 N cm (±25.7 N cm), pullout force was 382.8 N (±140.5 N) without PMMA. Injection of 0.1 ml PMMA did not change significantly both screw torque (p=0.73) and pullout (p=0.129). Filling of the burr holes with PMMA increased significantly both screw torque (p<0.0001) and pullout force (p=0.028) when compared with injection of 0.1 ml of PMMA. A positive, moderate correlation was seen between BMD and screw torque before (r=0.501; p=0.097) and after filling with PMMA (r=0.514; p=0.088), BMD and pullout force before (r=0.441; p=0.152) and after complete filling with PMMA (r=0.673; p=0.047). The PMMA does increase both screw torque (p<0.0001) and pullout force (p=0.028) of facet screws significantly if the burr hole is filled with PMMA completely when compared with injection of 0.1 ml PMMA. Bone mineral density of the cervical facets moderately correlates with peak insertional torque and pullout force. This is true for a facet without PMMA and for a facet filled with PMMA. The length of the burr hole seems to be less important.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Do Koh Y, Lim TH, You JW, Eck J, An H (2001) Biomechanical comparison of modern anterior and posterior plate fixation of the cervical spine. Spine 26:115–121
Errico T, Uhl R, Cooper P, Casar R, McHenry T (1992) Pullout strength comparison of two methods of orienting screw insertion in the lateral masses of the bovine cervical spine. J Spinal Disord 5:459–463
Fagerström T, Hedlund R, Bancel P, Robert R, Dupas B (2001) Laminar hook instrumentation in the cervical spine. An experimental study on the relation of hooks to the spinal cord. Eur Spine J 10:340–344
Hadra BE (1891) Wiring of the vertebrae as a means of immobilisation in fracture and Pott’s disease. Med Times Register 22:423
Heller J, Carlson G, Abitol J, Garfin S (1991) Anatomic comparison of the Roy-Camille and Magerl techniques for screw placement in the lower cervical spine. Spine 16 (Suppl):S552–S557
Heller J, Silcox H, Sutterlin C (1995) Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine 20:2442–2448
Heller J, Estes B, Zaouli M, Flier R, Diop A (1996) Biomechanical study of screws in the lateral masses: variables affecting pullout resistance. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 78:1315–1321
Jones El, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton W (1997) Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws: anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine 22:977–982
Jost B, Cripton PA, Lund T, Oxland TR, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP (1998) Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J 7:132–141
Kowalski JM, Steven Cl, Hutton WC, Heller JG (2000) Cervical spine pedicle screws: a biomechanical comparison of two insertion techniques. Spine 25:2865–2867
Lill CA, Schlegel U, Wahl D, Schneider E (2000) Comparison of the in vitro holding strength of conical and cylindrical pedicle screws in a fully inserted setting and backed out 180 degrees. J Spinal Disord 13:259–266
Maloney WJ, Schmalzried T, Harris WH (2002) Analysis of long-term cemented total hip arthroplasty retrievals. Clin Orthop 405:70–78
Mihara H, Cheng BC, David SM, Ohnari K, Zdeblick TA (2001) Biomechanical comparison of posterior cervical fixation. Spine 26:1662–1667
Montesano P, Jauch E, Anderson P, Benson D, Hanson P (1991) Biomechanics of cervical spine internal fixation. Spine 16 (Suppl):S10–S16
Montesano P, Juach E, Jonsson H (1992) Anatomic and biomechanical study of posterior cervical spine plate arthrodesis: an evaluation of two different techniques of screw placement. J Spinal Disord 5:301–305
Oxland TR, Lund T, Jost B, Cripton P, Lippuner K, Jaeger P, Nolte LP (1996) The relative importance of vertebral bone density and disc degeneration in spinal flexibility and interbody implant performance. An in vitro study. Spine 21:2558–2569
Pfeiffer M, Gilbertson LG, Goel VK, Griss P, Keller JC, Ryken TC, Hoffmann HE (1996). Effect of specimen fixation method on pullout tests of pedicle screws. Spine 21:1037–1044
Pitzen T, Wilke HJ, Caspar W, Claes L, Steudel WI (1999) Biomechanical evaluation of a new monocortical screw for anterior cervical fusion and plating by a combined biomechanical and clinical study. Eur Spine J 8:382–387
Pitzen T, Barbier D, Tintinger F, Steudel WI, Strowitzki M (2002) Screw fixation to the posterior cortical shell does not influence peak torque and pullout in anterior cervical plating. Eur Spine J 11:494–499
Richter M, Wilke HJ, Kluger P, Neller S, Claes LE, Puhl W (2000) Biomechanical evaluation of a new modular rod–screw implant system for posterior instrumentation of the occipito-cervical spine: in-vitro comparison with two established implant systems. Eur Spine J 9:417–425
Rogers WA (1942) Treatment of fracture–dislocation of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg 24:245–258
Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel JC (1989) Internal fixation of the unstable cervical spine by a posterior osteosynthesis with plates and screws. In: The Cervical Spine Research Society (eds) The cervical spine. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 390–412
Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW (2002) Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines. J Neurosurg 96:309–312
Schultheiss M, Wilke HJ, Claes L, Kinzl L, Hartwig E (2002) MACS-TL polyaxial screw XL. A new concept for increasing stability of ventral spondylodesis in the presence of dorsal injuries. Orthopäde 31:397–401
Seybold E, Baker J, Criscitiello A, Ordway N, Park C, Connolly PJ (1999) Characteristics of unicortical and bicortical lateral mass screws in the cervical spine. Spine 24:2397–2403
Ulrich C, Arand M, Nothwang J (2001) Internal fixation on the lower cervical spine: biomechanics and clinical practice of procedures and implants. Eur Spine J 10:88–100
Strempel A von, Kuhle J, Plitz W (1994) Stability of pedicle screws: maximum pullout force with reference to bone density. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 132:82–86
Weise K, Eingartner C, Winter E (2003) Cemented versus uncemented hip replacement: rational decision making using the BiCONTACT total hip system. Zentralbl Chir 128:46–52
Wellmann B, Follett K, Traynelis V (1998) Complications of posterior articular mass plate fixation of the subaxial cervical spine in 43 consecutive patients. Spine 23:193–200
Wittenberg RH, Lee KS, Shea M, White AA III, Hayes WC (1993) Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. Clin Orthop 296:278–287
This study was supported by Aesculap (Tuttlingen, Germany). The authors thank T. Grupp, T. Barthelmes and A. Pfaff for assistance.
About this article
Cite this article
Pitzen, T.R., Zenner, S., Barbier, D. et al. Factors affecting the interface of cervical spine facet screws placed in the technique by Roy-Camille et al.. Eur Spine J 13, 524–529 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0685-5
- Cervical spine
- Bone cement
- Bone density