胸腰椎骨质疏松骨折行磷酸钙骨水泥灌注成形的生物力学实验

目的:探讨磷酸钙骨水泥(CPC)注射椎体成形术后对胸腰椎骨质疏松骨折椎体的力学影响。方法:将4具甲醛固定的老年尸体胸腰椎标本建立前屈方向加载单椎体骨折模型,将固液比为2.5∶1的自固化CPC对胸腰椎骨质疏松骨折标本行成形强化,骨折前、成形后分别行屈曲压缩力学实验。结果:在同样的载荷下,单椎体CPC成形后的椎体应变比骨折前小,有统计学差异(t=6.37,P<0.05),骨质疏松性胸腰椎标本行CPC灌注成形可以恢复椎体的强度和刚度,分别增加16.92%和22.31%(P<0.05)。结论:椎体内注射CPC能明显恢复骨质疏松骨折椎体的力学性质。     

胸腰椎骨质疏松骨折行CPC灌注成形的力学实验

目的探讨磷酸钙骨水泥(calcium phosphate cement,CPC)注射椎体成形术后对胸腰椎骨质疏松骨折椎体的力学影响。方法建立前屈方向加载单椎体骨折模型,对胸腰椎骨质疏松骨折标本行CPC成形强化,骨折前、成形后分别行屈曲压缩力学实验。结果椎体内注射CPC能明显恢复骨质疏松骨折椎体的力学性质。骨质疏松性胸腰椎标本行CPC灌注成形可以恢复椎体的强度和刚度,分别增加16.92%(P<0.05)和22.31%(P<0.05)。结论椎体内注射CPC能明显恢复骨质疏松骨折椎体的力学性质。     

磷酸钙骨水泥注射椎体成形术的生物力学研究

目的探讨磷酸钙骨水泥注射椎体成形术后对椎体的力学影响.方法建立前屈方向加载单椎体骨折模型,对新鲜尸体胸腰椎椎体标本行磷酸钙骨水泥(CPC)成形强化,骨折前、成形后分别行屈曲压缩力学实验.结果椎体内注射CPC能明显恢复骨折椎体的力学性质.但其恢复的程度与注入量有关,其强度最高可恢复到原来正常情况下的2倍,而刚度可超过原来的14.70%左右.椎体的强度和刚度分别增加52.38%(P＜0.05)和14.70%(P＜0.05).结论椎体内注射CPC能明显恢复骨折椎体的力学性质.     

胸腰椎爆裂骨折模型中硫酸钙骨水泥椎体成形术的生物力学性能

[目的]评价硫酸钙骨水泥椎体成形术的生物力学性能并探讨用于胸腰椎爆裂骨折的可行性. [方法]16具新鲜小牛胸腰椎标本分为4组,每组4具,A、B、C 3组(实验组)标本在制成爆裂骨折模型后分别实施3种骨水泥(CSC、CPC、PMMA)椎体成形术,D组为无骨折对照组.测量爆裂骨折前、后、复位后及椎体成形术后的椎体前缘高度;测量达到完全填充时的3种骨水泥的注射量;生物力学检测比较4组标本间的极限抗压强度及刚度差别. [结果](1)实验组12具标本均形成胸腰椎爆裂骨折模型,平均撞击能量为66.2 J;(2)CSC、CPC、PMMA的注射量分别为:4.4 ml±0.8 ml、3.7 ml±0.7 ml、4.0 ml±0.6 ml,组间无差别(P>0.05);(3)3种骨水泥均能有效充填爆裂骨折椎体复位后遗留的骨缺损,显著恢复伤椎高度(P<0.01);(4)A、B、C、D组的极限抗压强度分别为:1 659 N±154 N、1 011 N±142 N、2 821 N±897 N及2 439 N±525 N.PMMA能够完全恢复骨折椎的抗压强度,CSC、CPC均只能部分恢复骨折椎的强度,但CSC优于CPC(P<0.01);(5)4组椎体的刚度分别为:140 N/mm±40 N/mm、148 N/mm±33 N/mm、236 N/mm±97 N/mm、224 N/mm±38 N/mm.CSC的刚度低于完整椎体(62.5%,P<0.05),但与PMMA、CPC差异无统计学意义(P>0.05). [结论]经CSC椎体成形术的骨折椎的强度优于CPC,刚度与PMMA、CPC相当.将CSC椎体成形术作为一种辅助治疗方式用于胸腰椎爆裂骨折能满足力学要求、手术安全可行.     

硫酸钙骨水泥在胸腰椎爆裂骨折椎体成形术中的生物力学性能

[目的]评价硫酸钙骨水泥(CSC)椎体成形术在胸腰椎爆裂骨折中的生物力学性能及临床应用价值.[方法]将16具新鲜小牛胸腰椎标本分为4组,A、B、C 3组制成爆裂骨折模型后分别实施CSC磷酸钙骨水泥(CPC)、聚甲基丙烯酸酯(PMMA)椎体成形术,D组为无骨折对照组.测量指标包括:爆裂骨折前、后与复位后及椎体成形术后的椎体前缘高度;达到完全填充时的3种骨水泥的注射量;生物力学检测4组标本的极限抗压强度及刚度.[结果](1)实验组12具标本均形成胸腰椎爆裂骨折模型,平均撞击能量为66.2 J;(2)CSC、CPC、PMMA的注射量分别为:4.4 ml±0.8 ml、3.7 ml±0.7 ml、4.0 ml±0.6 ml,组间无差别(P>0.05);(3)3种骨水泥均能有效充填爆裂骨折椎体复位后遗留的骨缺损,显著恢复了伤椎高度(P<0.01);(4)A、B、C、D组的极限抗压强度分别为:1 659 N±154 N、1 011 N±142 N、2 821 N±897 N及2 439 N±525 N.PMMA能够完全恢复骨折椎的抗压强度,CSC、CPC均只能部分恢复骨折椎的强度,但CSC优于CPC(P<0.01);(5)4组椎体的刚度分别为:(140±40)N/mm、(148±33)N/mm、(236±97)N/mm、(224±38)N/mm.CSC的刚度低于完整椎体68.0%,(P<0.05),但与PMMA、CPC无显著差异(P>0.05).[结论]经CSC椎体成形术的骨折椎强度优于CPC,刚度与PM-MA、CPC相当.将CSC椎体成形术作为一种辅助治疗方式用于胸腰椎爆裂骨折能满足力学要求,手术安全可行.     

脊柱前中柱稳定性对椎弓根螺钉内固定器前屈压缩刚度的影响及其意义

目的 分析脊柱前中柱稳定性对椎弓根螺钉内固定器固定后前屈压缩刚度的影响,并探讨其临床意义。方法 收集7具新鲜猪T_(10)～L_4节段胸腰椎脊柱标本,“Ⅴ”形切除L_1椎体并压缩至闭合,造成前中柱不稳,模拟L_1骨折后安放AF椎弓根内固定器,进行前屈-压缩测试,分别计算完整标本、损伤标本和内固定后标本的前屈-压缩刚度。结果 完整标本、损伤标本和固定后标本的前屈-压缩刚度分别为413.9±118.6N/mm、136.6±31.6N/mm、240.5±51.4N/mm。相互间差异显著 (P<0.001)。结论 脊柱前中柱失稳后,经椎弓根螺钉内固定器械固定不能使其恢复到正常的机械力学性质,特别是前屈-压缩方向上。胸腰椎脊柱骨折经椎弓根螺钉系统固定后恢复前中柱的机械力学性质,减少其载荷分享是防止术后角度丢失,避免内固定器械固定失败的关键。     

CPC提高椎体钉固定强度的体外实验研究

目的探讨磷酸钙骨水泥(calcium phosphate cement,CPC)强化骨质疏松椎体钉后穿透单侧椎体皮质固定的可行性。方法选用新鲜成人尸体胸腰段骨质疏松标本24个,实验组为骨水泥(PMMA)和磷酸钙骨水泥灌注后椎体钉穿透单侧椎体皮质固定;对照组为无骨水泥强化,螺钉穿透双侧椎体皮质固定。应用螺钉拔出实验,记录螺钉最大拔出力并观察椎体破坏形态。结果三组拉出力值PMMA组(811.19±188.58N)、CPC组(541.89±101.44N)、对照组(374.21±77.66N)差异有显著性,P<0.01。分别增加122%±56%和50%±37%。对照组(8例)螺钉拔出破坏时均为螺钉抽出,在8例PMMA强化椎体中所有椎体均有不同程度骨折。而在8例CPC强化椎体中仅1例发生椎体骨折。结论应用CPC强化骨质疏松椎体钉简化手术步骤、增加手术安全性是可行的。     

小牛胸腰椎解剖、生物力学研究及其临床意义

目的　测量小牛胸腰椎相关解剖数据并测试其生物力学性能 ,探讨其作为胸腰椎前路内固定模型的可行性。方法　采集 1周以内的新鲜小牛胸腰椎脊柱标本 2 0具 ,测量椎体及椎间盘的最大横径、矢状径和前部高度。测试屈曲、伸展、侧屈及扭转状态下的载荷 -应变、载荷 -位移关系以及最大载荷时的应力强度及轴向刚度 ,并进行极限力学性能测试。结果　小牛胸腰椎椎体及椎间盘矢径、横径、高度自T10 至L5逐渐递增 ,椎体横径与矢径之比约为 1∶1,其T10 ～L5段椎间盘高度之和与椎体高度比值为 1∶0 .9。小牛胸腰椎载荷 -应变及载荷 -位移关系呈线性变化 ,生理载荷下屈曲、伸展及侧屈状态下的应力强度分别为 (2 .86± 0 .2 4 )N/mm2 ,(2 .17± 0 .2 0 )N/mm2 ,(5 .2 9± 0 .5 0 )N/mm2 。屈曲、伸展、侧屈及扭转状态下的轴向刚度分别为 (37.13± 4 .30 )N/mm ,(35 .38± 4 .2 0 )N/mm ,(34.5 6± 4 .2 0 )N/mm ,(5 1.6 9± 1.6 2 )N/mm。结论　小牛胸腰椎形态及大小可满足前路内固定模型的需要 ,以小牛标本作为体外非破坏性生物力学实验模型具有可行性。     

单双球囊后凸成形术对老年性椎体骨折的实验研究

[目的]探讨单、双球囊后凸成形术对治疗老年骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折的差别.[方法]10具老年胸腰段脊柱标本(T12～L2),骨密度仪测定椎体骨密度,证实为骨质疏松标本.标本随机分配为单球囊组和双球囊组,每组5具.将标本游离成单个椎体,每具标本选择2个椎体共20个椎体,经万能力学试验机轴向加载,制造椎体压缩骨折,压缩程度为25%,随即行单、双球囊后凸成形术,测定椎体在骨折前、后及骨水泥注入后的高度并记录骨水泥注入前、后最大负荷,计算其刚度.[结果]单球囊组原始椎体最大压缩负荷及刚度分别为(1420±80.55)N和(1030.27±50.74)N/mm,骨水泥注入后分别为(2937.9±175.15)N和(963±20.66)N/mm,双球囊组原始椎体最大负荷及刚度分别为(1398±85.35)N和(1024.16±57.50)N/mm,骨水泥注入后分别为(2800.8±157.79)N和(964.52±22.03)N/mm.单球囊组骨水泥注入后椎体高度恢复率为(96.20±0.01)%;双球囊组骨水泥注入后椎体高度恢复率为(95.30±0.02)%.骨水泥注入后椎体最大负荷及对骨折椎体的高度恢复单球囊组与双球囊组间差异无显著性(P＜0.01),椎体刚度差异无统计学意义.两组均未见骨水泥溢出.[结论]单、双球囊椎体后凸成形术生物力学测量结果和椎体高度恢复等实验结果无显著性统计学差异且骨水泥的渗漏率极低.     

三种骨水泥应用于椎体成形术的生物力学比较

目的:评价硫酸钙(CSC)、磷酸钙(CPC)与聚甲基丙烯酸酯(PMMA)3种骨水泥用于椎体成形术的生物力学性能。方法:将16具小牛胸腰段(T11～L1)标本分为4组,A、B、C组制成T12爆裂骨折模型,D组为无骨折对照组,测量爆裂骨折前、后和复位并分别注射CSC(A组)、CPC(B组)、PMMA(C组)行椎体成形术后椎体前缘高度,达到骨水泥完全填充时的骨水泥注射量;生物力学检测4组标本的极限抗压强度及刚度。结果:12具标本均形成胸腰椎爆裂骨折模型,平均撞击能量66.2J;CSC、CPC、PMMA注射量分别为4.35±0.80ml、3.72±0.73ml及3.95±0.63ml,3组间无显著性差异(P>0.05);3种骨水泥均能有效充填爆裂椎体复位后残留的骨缺损及恢复伤椎高度(P<0.01);A、B、C及D组的极限抗压强度分别为1659±154N、1011±142N、2821±897N及2439±525N,C组能完全恢复椎体的抗压强度,A、B组可部分恢复,但A组优于B组(P<0.01);4组标本的刚度分别为140±40N/mm、148±33N/mm、236±97N/mm及224±38N/mm,A组刚度低于D组(68.0%,P<0.05),但与B、C组无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:3种不同成分骨水泥中,PMMA的强度最高,CSC次之,CPC的强度最差,刚度方面三者间无明显差别;CSC用于椎体成形术能满足对椎体填充材料的生物力学要求,可作为椎体成形术中填充材料的选择之一。     

The use of an injectable, biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute for the prophylactic augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae and the management of vertebral compression fractures.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study comparing two materials for augmentation of osteoporotic vertebral bodies and vertebral bodies after compression fracture. OBJECTIVES: To compare an injected, biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute with injected polymethylmethacrylate bone cement for strengthening osteoporotic vertebral bodies and improving the integrity of vertebral compression fractures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Injection of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement into fractured vertebral bodies has been used clinically. However, there is concern about thermal damage to the neural elements during polymerization of the polymethylmethacrylate bone cement as well as its negative effects on bone remodeling. Biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitutes have been studied for enhancement of fixation in fractured vertebrae. METHODS: Forty fresh osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebrae were used for two separate parts of this study: 1) injection into osteoporotic vertebrae: intact control (n = 8), calcium phosphate (n = 8), and polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (n = 8) groups. Each specimen then was loaded in anterior compression until failure; 2) injection into postfractured vertebrae: calcium phosphate (n = 8) and polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (n = 8) groups. Before and after injection, the specimens were radiographed in the lateral projection to determine changes in vertebral body height and then loaded to failure in anterior bending. RESULTS: For intact osteoporotic vertebrae, the average fracture strength was 527 +/- 43 N (stiffness, 84 +/- 11 N/mm), 1063 +/- 127 N (stiffness, 157 +/- 21 N/mm) for the group injected with calcium phosphate, and 1036 +/- 100 N (stiffness, 156 +/- 8 N/mm) for the group injected with polymethylmethacrylate bone cement. The fracture strength and stiffness in the calcium phosphate bone substitute group and those in the polymethylmethacrylate bone cement group were similar and significantly stronger than those in intact control group (P < 0.05). For the compression fracture study, anterior vertebral height was increased 58.5 +/- 4.6% in the group injected with calcium phosphate and 58.0 +/- 6.5% in the group injected with polymethylmethacrylate bone cement as compared with preinjection fracture heights. No significant difference between the two groups was found in anterior vertebral height, fracture strength, or stiffness. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the injection of a biodegradable calcium phosphate bone substitute to strengthen osteoporotic vertebral bodies or improve vertebral compression fractures might provide an alternative to the use of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement.     

An ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of an inflatable bone tamp used in the treatment of compression fracture

STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo biomechanical study using osteoporotic cadaveric vertebral bodies. OBJECTIVES: To determine if the inflatable bone tamp (tamp) restores height to compressed vertebral bodies and to compare the biomechanical properties of isolated, fractured osteoporotic vertebral bodies treated by kyphoplasty (tamp) or vertebroplasty. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous biomechanical studies have shown that vertebroplasty increases vertebral body strength and restores vertebral body stiffness, but does not restore vertebral body height lost as a result of compression fracture. METHODS: Compression fractures were experimentally created in 16 osteoporotic VBs assigned to either the tamp or percutaneous vertebroplasty group. The tamp treatment consisted of inserting balloon-like devices into the vertebral body, inflating the bone tamp, and filling the void with Simplex P (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ) bone cement. The percutaneous vertebroplasty treatment consisted of directly injecting Cranioplastic bone cement (CMW, Blackpool, UK) into the vertebral body. Pre- and posttreatment heights were measured, and the repaired vertebral bodies were recompressed to determine posttreatment strength and stiffness values. RESULTS: The tamp treatment resulted in significant restoration (97%) of vertebral body height lost after compression, whereas percutaneous vertebroplasty treatment resulted in a significantly lower restoration of lost height (30%) (P < 0.05). Both treatments resulted in significantly stronger vertebral bodies relative to their initial state (P < 0.05). The tamp treatment restored vertebral body stiffness to initial values, but the percutaneous vertebroplasty treatment did not (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tamp treatment resulted in significantly greater height restoration than did percutaneous vertebroplasty, without loss of vertebral body strength or stiffness.     

Biomechanical evaluation of vertebroplasty using calcium sulfate cement for thoracolumbar burst fractures

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the biomechanical performance of vertebroplasty using calcium sulfate cement for thoracolumbar burst fractures. METHODS: Sixteen bovine thoracolumbar spines (T11-L1) were divided into 4 groups (A,B,C and D). After burst-fracture model was created, 12 vertebral bodies in Groups A, B and C were augmented with calcium sulfate cement (CSC), calcium phosphate cement (CPC) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement, respectively. Each anterior vertebral body height was measured with a caliper at 4 time points: intact conditions (HInt), post-fracture (HFr), post-reduction (HRe) and post-vertebroplasty (HVP). The filling volume of 3 different bone cements was also measured. Each vertebral body was compressed at 0.5 mm/s using a hinged plating system on a materials testing machine to 50% of the post-vertebroplasty height to determine strength and stiffness. Difference was checked using t test or One-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The average strike energy was 66.2 J. Vertebroplasty with different cements could sustain vertebral height.The average filling volume of bone cement in 3 groups was 4.35 ml (CSC), 3.72 ml (CPC) and 3.95 ml (PMMA), respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference among them (P larger than 0.05). Vertebroplasty with PMMA completely restored strength (116%) and stiffness (105%). CSC or CPC partly recovered vertebral strength and stiffness. However, greater strength restoration was got with CSC (1659 N) as compared with CPC (1011N, P less than 0.01). Regarding stiffness, differences between CSC (140 N/mm+/-40 N/mm)and the other two bone cements (CPC:148 N/mm+/-33 N/mm, PMMA:236 N/mm+/-97 N/mm) were not significant (P larger than 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For a burst-fracture of calf spine, use of CSC for vertebroplasty yields similar vertebral stiffness as compared with PMMA or CPC. Although augmentation with CSC partly obtains the normal strength, this treatment still can be applied in thoracolumbar burst fractures with other instrumental devices in light of its bioactivation.     

Biomechanical evaluation of kyphoplasty with calcium sulfate cement in a cadaveric osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture model.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral compression fractures can cause deformity, pain, and disability. Kyphoplasty involves percutaneous insertion of an inflatable balloon tamp into a fractured vertebra followed by injection of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement. PMMA has several disadvantages such as potential thermal necrosis and monomer toxicity. Calcium sulfate cement (CSC) is nontoxic, osteoconductive, and bioabsorbable. PURPOSE: To evaluate the biomechanical performance of CSC for kyphoplasty in cadaveric osteoporotic vertebral bodies. STUDY DESIGN: Destructive biomechanical tests using fresh cadaveric thoracolumbar vertebral bodies. METHODS: Thirty-three vertebral bodies (T9 to L4) from osteoporotic cadaveric spines were disarticulated, stripped of soft tissue, and measured for height and volume. Each vertebral body was compressed at 0.5 mm/s using a hinged plating system on a materials testing machine to create an anterior wedge fracture and reduce the anterior height by 25%. Pretreatment strength and stiffness were measured. Two KyphX inflatable balloon tamps were used to reexpand each vertebral body. After randomization, three groups were created: Group A-no cement; Group B-PMMA; Group C-calcium sulfate cement. Groups B and C were filled with the corresponding cement to 25% of the vertebral body volume. All vertebral bodies were then recompressed by 25% of the post-kyphoplasty anterior height to obtain posttreatment strength and stiffness. RESULTS: Treatment with PMMA restored vertebral strength to 127% of the intact level (4168.2 N+/-2288.7) and stiffness to 70% of the intact level (810.0 N/mm+/-380.6). Treatment with CSC restored strength to 108% of the intact level (3429.6 N+/-2440.7) and stiffness to 46% of the intact level (597.7 N/mm+/-317.5). CSC and PMMA were not significantly different for strength restoration (p=.4). Significantly greater strength restoration was obtained with either PMMA or CSC, compared with the control group (p=.003 and .03, respectively). Stiffness restoration tended to be greater with PMMA than for CSC, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=.1). Both cements had significantly greater stiffness when compared with the control group (p=.001 and p=.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of CSC for kyphoplasty yields similar vertebral body strength and stiffness as compared with PMMA. It may be a useful alternative bone cement for kyphoplasty. Further studies are required to assess the bioabsorption of CSCs after kyphoplasty in vivo.     

Biomechanical evaluation of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with calcium phosphate cement in a simulated osteoporotic compression fracture

 Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) have been used for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. We performed kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with α-tricalcium phosphate cement (CPC) and PMMA to compare the biomechanical properties. Thirty osteoporotic vertebrae were harvested from nine embalmed cadavers. We randomized the vertebrae into four treatment groups: (1) kyphoplasty with CPC; (2) kyphoplasty with PMMA; (3) vertebroplasty with CPC; and (4) vertebroplasty with PMMA. Prior to injecting the cement, all vertebrae were compressed to determine their initial strength and stiffness. They were then recompressed to determine their augmented strength and stiffness. Although the augmented strength was greater than the initial strength in all groups, there was no significant difference between the two bone cements for either kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty. The augmented stiffness was significantly less than the initial stiffness in the kyphoplasty groups, but the difference between the two cements did not reach significance. In the vertebroplasty groups, the augmented stiffness was not significantly different from the initial stiffness. There was no significant difference between the two bone cements for either procedure when cement volume and restoration of anterior height were assessed. We concluded that kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty with CPC were viable treatment alternatives to PMMA for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Received: July 18, 2002 / Accepted: November 6, 2002 Offprint requests to: S. Tomita     

An ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of a hydroxyapatite cement for use with vertebroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: Comparative ex vivo biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the strength and stiffness of osteoporotic vertebral bodies subjected to compression fractures and stabilized via bipedicular injections of the following: 1) Simplex P (Stryker-Howmedica-Osteonics, Rutherford, NJ), 2) Simplex P formulated consistent with the practice of vertebroplasty (F2), or 3) BoneSource (Stryker-Howmedica-Osteonics). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about the mechanical stabilization afforded by new materials proposed for use with vertebroplasty. METHODS: Vertebral bodies (T8-T10 and L2-L4) from each of 10 fresh spines were harvested from female cadavers (81 +/- 12 years), screened for bone density (t score, -3.8 +/- 1.1; bone mineral density, 0.75 +/- 15 g/cm2), disarticulated, and compressed to determine initial strength and stiffness. The fractured vertebral bodies were stabilized via bipedicular injections of 4 mL (thoracic) or 6 mL (lumbar) and then recrushed. RESULTS: Vertebral bodies repaired with Simplex P resulted in significantly greater strength (P < 0.05) relative to their prefracture states, those repaired with BoneSource resulted in the restoration of initial strength for both the thoracic and lumbar level, and those repaired with F2 resulted in significantly greater strength (P < 0.05) in the thoracic region and restoration of strength in the lumbar region. All cement treatments resulted in significantly less stiffness compared with initial values. CONCLUSIONS: All three materials tested restored or increased vertebral body strength, but none restored stiffness. Both new materials show promise for use in percutaneous vertebroplasty, but they need clinical evaluation.     

The biomechanics of vertebroplasty. The effect of cement volume on mechanical behavior.

STUDY DESIGN: Ex vivo biomechanical study using osteoporotic cadaveric vertebral bodies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between the volume of cement injected during percutaneous vertebroplasty and the restoration of strength and stiffness in osteoporotic vertebral bodies, two investigational cements were studied: Orthocomp (Orthovita, Malvern, PA) and Simplex 20 (Simplex P with 20% by weight barium sulfate content; Stryker-Howmedica-Osteonics, Rutherford, NJ). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous biomechanical studies have shown that injections of 8-10 mL of cement during vertebroplasty restore or increase vertebral body strength and stiffness; however, the dose-response association between cement volume and restoration of strength and stiffness is unknown. METHODS: Compression fractures were experimentally created in 144 vertebral bodies (T6-L5) obtained from 12 osteoporotic spines harvested from female cadavers. After initial strength and stiffness were determined, the vertebral bodies were stabilized using bipedicular injections of cement totaling 2, 4, 6, or 8 mL and recompressed, after which post-treatment strength and stiffness were measured. Strength and stiffness were considered restored when post-treatment values were not significantly different from initial values. RESULTS: Strength was restored for all regions when 2 mL of either cement was injected. To restore stiffness with Orthocomp, the thoracic and thoracolumbar regions required 4 mL, but the lumbar region required 6 mL. To restore stiffness with Simplex 20, the thoracic and lumbar regions required 4 mL, but the thoracolumbar region required 8 mL. CONCLUSION: These data provide guidance on the cement volumes needed to restore biomechanical integrity to compressed osteoporotic vertebral bodies.     

椎体后凸成形术与椎体成形术生物力学比较

目的比较椎体后凸成形术（KP）与椎体成形术（VP）对骨质疏松性椎体压缩骨折（OVCF）椎体力学性能的影响。方法5具尸体取20个胸腰段骨质疏松单椎体标本,按配对设计,分配为球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术组（KP组）和椎体成形术组（VP组）。经轴向加载压缩25%,制成椎体压缩骨折,记录制成骨折时的最大载荷及刚度数据。KP组将椎体压缩骨折标本行球囊扩张椎体后凸成形术;VP组将椎体压缩骨折标本行椎体成形术。然后将骨水泥强化治疗的椎体再次经万能力学试验机轴向加载,记录治疗后最大载荷及刚度数据。结果KP组和VP组骨折治疗后椎体最大载荷均分别明显高于骨折前（P〈0.01）,而椎体刚度差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。KP组与VP组间比较治疗后椎体最大载荷差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,椎体刚度差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论KP和VP均可明显增加OVCF椎体的抗压强度和恢复刚度。