颈椎经关节椎弓根螺钉固定与标准椎弓根螺钉固定的生物力学比较

目的 比较颈椎经关节椎弓根螺钉固定和标准椎弓根螺钉固定的拔出强度.方法 取10具新鲜尸体颈椎标本(C_3～T_1),游离成三个颈椎运动节段(C_(3,4),C_(5,6),C_7T_1).在椎体两侧随机进行经关节椎弓根螺钉固定或标准椎弓根螺钉固定,置入直径3.5 mm皮质骨螺钉.经关节椎弓根螺钉固定以上位椎骨侧块外下象限中点为进钉点,在直视椎弓根下,螺钉在冠状面内倾约45°、矢状面尾倾约50°.由上位椎骨下关节突经关节突关节、下位椎骨的椎弓根,进入下位椎骨的椎体内.标准椎弓根螺钉固定以侧块外上象限中点为进钉点,在直视椎弓根下,螺钉方向参考CT测量结果 ,尽量与椎弓根倾斜角度保持一致,在横断面上内倾约45°、矢状面上螺钉指向椎体的上1/3.在生物力学试验机上行拔出强度试验,比较两种螺钉固定的最大轴向拔出力.结果 颈椎经关节椎弓根螺钉固定平均最大轴向拨出力为(694±42)N,标准椎弓根螺钉固定为(670±36)N,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 颈椎后路经关节椎弓根螺钉固定的拔出强度大干标准椎弓根螺钉固定,从生物力学强度方面考虑经关节椎弓根螺钉固定可以作为标准椎弓根螺钉固定的一种补充方法.     

Cervical transfacet versus lateral mass screws: a biomechanical comparison

The authors directly the compared biomechanical pullout strength of screws placed in the cervical lateral masses to that of screws placed across the facet joints. Posterior cervical fixation with lateral mass plates is an accepted adjunctive technique for cervical spine fusions. Altered anatomy resulting from congenital malformation, tumor, trauma, infection, or failed lateral mass fixation may limit traditional screw placement options. Transfacet screw placement, which has been studied extensively in the lumbar spine, may offer an alternative when posterior cervical fusion is required. Ten fresh human cadaveric cervical spines (postmortem age range, 69 to 91 years) were harvested. On one side, transfacet screws were placed at the C3-4, C5-6, and C7-T1 levels. On the other side, lateral mass screws were placed at the C3, C5, and C7 levels. The screw insertion technique at each level was randomized for right or left. After screw placement, each set of vertebral bodies were dissected and mounted in a custom jig for axial pullout testing using a servohydraulic testing machine. The load-displacement curves were obtained for each screw pullout. The mean pullout strength for the screws placed across the facets was 467 N (range, 192 to 1,176 N). This compares with 360 N (range, 194 to 750 N) for the lateral mass screws (p = 0.008). At each level, transfacet screws exhibited greater pullout resistance compared with the lateral mass placement, but the difference was most pronounced at the C7-T1 level (lateral mass = 373 N, transfacet = 539 N, p = 0.042). Cervical transfacet screw placement provides pullout resistance that is comparable to, if not greater than, lateral mass placement. This type of placement, although technically difficult, may be an alternative to lateral mass screws in cases with unusual anatomy, stripped screws, or when additional intermediate points of fixation are desired.     

Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although successful clinical use of cervical pedicle screws has been reported, anatomical studies have shown the possibility for serious iatrogenic injury. However, there are only a limited number of reports on the biomechanical properties of these screws which evaluate the potential benefits of their application. PURPOSE: To investigate if the pull-out strengths after cyclic uniplanar loading of cervical pedicle screws are superior to lateral mass screws. STUDY DESIGN: An in vitro biomechanical study. METHODS: Twenty fresh-frozen disarticulated human vertebrae (C3-C7) were randomized to receive both a 3.5 mm cervical pedicle screw and lateral mass screw. The screws were cyclically loaded 200 times in the sagittal plane. The amount of displacement was recorded every 50 cycles. After cyclical loading, the screws were pulled and tensile load to failure was recorded. Bone density was measured in each specimen and maximum screw insertion torque was recorded for each screw. RESULTS: During loading the two screw types showed similar stability initially, however the lateral mass screws rapidly loosened compared to the pedicle screws. The rate of loosening in the lateral mass screws was widely variable, while the performance of the pedicle screws was very consistent. The pullout strengths were significantly higher for the cervical pedicle screws (1214 N vs. 332 N) and 40% failed by fracture of the pedicle rather than screw pullout. Pedicle screw pullout strengths correlated with both screw insertion torque and specimen bone density. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical pedicle screws demonstrated a significantly lower rate of loosening at the bone-screw interface, as well as higher strength after fatigue testing. These biomechanical strengths may justify their use in certain limited clinical applications.     

Biomechanical study of pedicle screw fixation in severely osteoporotic bone.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Obtaining adequate purchase with standard pedicle screw techniques remains a challenge in poor quality bone. The development of alternate insertion techniques and screw designs was prompted by recognition of potential fixation complications. An expandable pedicle screw design has been shown to significantly improve fixation compared to a conventional screw in poor quality bone. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement augmentation of an expandable pedicle screw can further improve fixation strength compared to the expandable screw alone in severely osteoporotic bone. A technique for cement insertion into the pedicle by means of the cannulated central portion of the expandable screw is also described. STUDY DESIGN: The axial pullout strength, stiffness and energy absorbed of cemented and noncemented expandable pedicle screws was determined in cadaveric vertebrae. METHODS: Twenty-one fresh unembalmed vertebrae from the thoracolumbar spine were used. Radiographs and bone mineral density measurements (BMD) were used to characterize bone quality. Paired cemented and noncemented pedicle screw axial pullout strength was determined through mechanical testing. Mechanical pullout strength, stiffness and energy to failure was correlated with BMD. RESULTS: Overall, there was a 250% increase in mean pullout strength with the cemented expandable screw compared with a noncemented expandable screw including a greater than twofold increase in pullout strength in the most severely osteoporotic bone. The mean stiffness and energy absorbed to failure was also significantly increased. A cemented conventional screw achieved a pullout strength similar to the noncemented expandable screw. CONCLUSIONS: PMMA cement augmentation of the expandable pedicle screw may be a viable clinical option for achieving fixation in severely osteoporotic bone.     

Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective evaluation of complications in 180 consecutive patients with cervical disorders who had been treated by using pedicle screw fixation systems. OBJECTIVES: To determine the risks associated with pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine and to emphasize the importance of preoperative planning and surgical techniques in reducing the risks of this procedure. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Generally, pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine has been considered too risky for the neurovascular structures. There have been several reports describing the complications of lateral mass screw-plate fixation. However, no studies have examined in detail the complications associated with cervical pedicle screw fixation. METHODS: One hundred eighty patients who underwent cervical reconstructive surgery using cervical pedicle screw fixation were reviewed to clarify the complications associated with the pedicle screw fixation procedure. Cervical disorders were spinal injuries in 70 patients and nontraumatic lesions in 110 patients. Seven hundred twelve screws were inserted into the cervical pedicles, and the locations of 669 screws were radiologically evaluated. RESULTS: Injury of the vertebral artery occurred in one patient. The bleeding was stopped by bone wax, and no neurologic complication developed after surgery. On computed tomographic (CT) scan, 45 screws (6.7%) were found to penetrate the pedicle, and 2 of 45 screws caused radiculopathy. Besides these three neurovascular complications directly attributed to screw insertion, radiculopathy caused by iatrogenic foraminal stenosis from excessive reduction of the translational deformity was observed in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of the clinically significant complications caused by pedicle screw insertion was low. Complications associated with cervical pedicle screw fixation can be minimized by sufficient preoperative imaging studies of the pedicles and strict control of screw insertion. Pedicle screw fixation is a useful procedure for reconstruction of the cervical spine in various kinds of disorders and can be performed safely.     

颈椎椎弓根三种置钉法的实验研究

目的: 评价 3种颈椎椎弓根置钉方法。方法: 3组尸体各 9具, 行颈椎CT影像测量后分别用 3种方法进行椎弓根置钉, 其结果由CT验证。结果: 颈椎椎弓根三维定位器法置钉 90枚, 椎弓根内占 90%, 其中神经根损伤 2枚, 椎动脉损伤 1枚; Abumi法置钉 90枚, 椎弓根内占 55. 56%, 其中神经根损伤 19枚, 椎动脉损伤 4枚; Ebraheim法置钉 72枚, 椎弓根内占 29. 17%, 其中神经根损伤 24枚, 椎动脉损伤 29枚, 3种方法均无脊髓损伤。结论: 在术中不探查椎弓根、无影像设备导向条件下, 颈椎椎弓根三维定位器置钉准确率较Abumi手法置钉高, 而Ebraheim法不适用于国人。     

Biomechanical comparison of the pullout strengths of C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws

Background contextConditions of the atlantoaxial complex requiring internal stabilization can result from trauma, malignancy, inflammatory diseases, and congenital malformation. Several techniques have been used for stabilization and fusion. Posterior wiring is biomechanically inferior to screw fixation. C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws are used for instrumentation of the atlas. Previous studies have shown that unicortical C1 lateral mass screws are biomechanically stable for fixation. No study has evaluated the biomechanical stability of C1 posterior arch screws or compared the two techniques.PurposeThe purpose of the study was to assess the differences in the pullout strength between C1 lateral mass screws and C1 posterior arch screws.Study designBiomechanical testing of pullout strengths of the two atlantal screw fixation techniques.MethodsThirteen fresh human cadaveric C1 vertebrae were harvested, stripped of soft tissues, evaluated with computed tomography for anomalies, and instrumented with unicortical C1 lateral mass screws on one side and unicortical C1 posterior arch screws on the other. Screw placement was confirmed with postinstrumentation fluoroscopy. Specimens were divided in the sagittal plane and potted in polymethylmethacrylate. Axial load to failure was applied with a material testing device. Load displacement curves were obtained, and the results were compared with Student t test. DePuy Spine, Inc. (Raynham, MA, USA) provided the hardware used in this study.ResultsMean pullout strength of the C1 lateral mass screws was 821 N (range 387?1,645 N±standard deviation [SD] 364). Mean pullout strength of the posterior arch screws was 1,403 N (range 483?2,200 N±SD 609 N). The difference was significant (p=.009). Five samples (38%) in the posterior arch group experienced bone failure before screw pullout.ConclusionsBoth unicortical lateral mass screws and unicortical posterior arch screws are viable options for fixation in the atlas. Unicortical posterior arch screws have superior resistance to pullout via axial load compared with unicortical lateral mass screws in the atlas.     

枢椎棘突螺钉单侧应用联合对侧椎弓根螺钉固定的有限元分析

目的分析枢椎棘突螺钉单侧应用联合对侧椎弓根螺钉固定在寰枢和枕颈固定中的生物力学稳定性。方法构建正常枢椎解剖、椎板薄和椎动脉变异椎弓根细小3种不同解剖状态下的完整上部颈椎有限元模型作为完整模型组,然后分别模拟齿状突骨折进行寰枢固定和寰椎骨折进行枕颈固定。在寰枢固定中,比较单侧枢椎棘突螺钉+对侧椎弓根螺钉+双侧寰椎侧块螺钉固定组(棘突螺钉组)和枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉+双侧寰椎侧块螺钉固定组(椎弓根螺钉组);在枕颈固定中,比较单侧枢椎棘突螺钉+对侧椎弓根螺钉+枕骨螺钉固定组(棘突螺钉组)和枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉+枕骨螺钉固定组(椎弓根螺钉组)。枢椎棘突螺钉分别测试水平、斜向、垂直置钉3种不同的固定技术。模拟颈椎运动,测量枕颈的屈伸、侧屈、旋转的关节活动范围(ROM)。结果在寰枢和枕颈固定中,棘突螺钉组和椎弓根螺钉组的C1~C2屈伸、侧屈、旋转ROM均较完整模型组均明显下降。在寰枢固定中棘突螺钉组C0~C2屈伸、侧屈、旋转的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组;在枕颈固定中,棘突螺钉组C1~C2侧屈的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组,棘突螺钉组的C0~C2旋转的ROM大于椎弓根螺钉组。枢椎棘突螺钉分别测试水平、斜向、垂直固定间有差异,但不明显。结论在寰枢和枕颈固定中,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定和枢椎单侧棘突螺钉联合对侧椎弓根螺钉组合式固定方法均具有良好的稳定性。在寰枢固定中,相对于枢椎棘突螺钉组合式固定,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定具有更好的寰枢稳定性。在枕颈固定中,枢椎双侧椎弓根螺钉固定在侧屈和旋转活动上较枢椎棘突螺钉组合式固定稳定性更好。枢椎三种棘突螺钉置钉技术间的稳定性差异并不明显。     

Biomechanical comparison of two-level cervical locking posterior screw/rod and hook/rod techniques.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Locking posterior instrumentation in the cervical spine can be attached using 1) pedicle screws, 2) lateral mass screws, or 3) laminar hooks. This order of options is in order of decreasing technical difficulty and decreasing depth of fixation, and is thought to be in order of decreasing stability. PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether substantially different biomechanical stability can be achieved in a two-level construct using pedicle screws, lateral mass screws, or laminar hooks. Secondarily, we sought to quantify the differential and additional stability provided by an anterior plate. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical flexibility experiment comparing three different posterior constructs for stabilizing the cervical spine after three-column injury. METHODS: Twenty-one human cadaveric cervical spines were divided into three groups. Group 1 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and pedicle screws at C7; Group 2 received lateral mass screws at C5 and C6 and laminar hooks at C7; Group 3 received pedicle screws at C5, C6, and C7. Specimens were nondestructively tested intact, after a three-column two-level injury, after posterior C5-C7 rod fixation, after two-level discectomy and anterior plating, and after removing posterior fixation. Angular motion was recorded during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Posterior hardware was subsequently failed by dorsal loading. RESULTS: Laminar hooks performed well in resisting flexion and extension but were less effective in resisting lateral bending and axial rotation, allowing greater range of motion (ROM) than screw constructs and allowing a significantly greater percentage of the two-level ROM to occur across the hook level than the screw level (p<.03). Adding an anterior plate significantly improved stability in all three groups. With combined hardware, Group 3 resisted axial rotation significantly worse than the other groups. Posterior instrumentation resisted lateral bending significantly better than anterior plating in all groups (p<.04) and resisted flexion and axial rotation significantly better than anterior plating in most cases. Standard deviation of the ROM was greater with anterior than with posterior fixation. There was no significant difference among groups in resistance to failure (p=.74). CONCLUSIONS: Individual pedicle screws are known to outperform lateral mass screws in terms of pullout resistance, but they offered no apparent advantage in terms of construct stability or failure of whole constructs. Larger standard deviations in anterior fixation imply more variability in the quality of fixation. In most loading modes, laminar hooks provided similar stability to lateral mass screws or pedicle screws; caudal laminar hooks are therefore an acceptable alternative posteriorly. Posterior two-level fixation is less variable and slightly more stable than anterior fixation. Combined instrumentation is significantly more stable than either anterior or posterior alone.     

Pedicle screw fixation in the cervical spine

Pedicle screw fixation of the lower cervical spine is a new technique that provides an alternative to posterior lateral mass plating. Although biomechanical studies support the use of pedicle screws to reconstruct the cervical spine, placing screws into the small cervical pedicle poses a technical challenge. Penetration of the pedicle is the primary complication associated with screw insertion in the lower cervical spine. Pedicle screw fixation at the C2 and C7 pedicles in conjunction with use of plates for occipitocervical or cervicothoracic plating is becoming an accepted technique; however, pedicle screw fixation should not be routinely used at the C3-C6 levels. It may be indicated in patients who have osteoporotic bone or when rigid internal fixation cannot be achieved by conventional techniques.     

下颈椎椎弓根螺钉内固定技术在临床中的应用

目的 :探讨下颈椎椎弓根螺钉内固定技术的临床应用。方法 :对2011年9月至2013年7月行下颈椎椎弓根螺钉内固定的32例患者进行回顾性分析,男20例,女12例;年龄21~78岁,平均56.4岁。其中10例为创伤性颈髓损伤,9例为颈椎管内肿瘤,7例颈椎后纵韧带骨化症,6例多节段颈椎病。所有患者术前行X线、CT、MRI及椎动脉MRA等影像学检查,术后及随访时行X线片及CT平扫明确螺钉的位置情况。根据Lee等4级分类法评价置钉的准确性,创伤性患者行ASIA分级评价脊髓功能变化,非创伤性患者采用JOA评分评价神经功能改善情况。结果:32例患者成功置入144枚下颈椎椎弓根螺钉,术后CT显示,0级132枚,1级5枚,2级5枚,3级2枚。有12枚螺钉穿破椎弓根,其中8枚螺钉穿破椎弓根外侧皮质,2枚螺钉穿破椎弓根下侧皮质,穿破椎弓根内侧、上侧皮质螺钉各1枚。术后随访12~33个月,平均(21.0±1.5)个月,6例完全性颈髓损伤患者术后神经功能虽无恢复,但截瘫平面下降1~3个脊髓节段。4例不完全性颈髓损伤患者术后按ASIA损伤分级提高1~2级。22例非创伤性患者术后6个月JOA评分平均(15.9±0.6)分,较术前(11.5±0.8)分明显提高(P<0.01)。所有患者未发现钉棒系统松动、断裂情况。结论:下颈椎椎弓根螺钉固定能提供优秀的三维稳定性。合理选择适应证,术前充分准备以及根据椎弓根形态个体化置钉可以最大限度的降低手术风险及手术并发症,值得临床应用推广。     

枢椎棘突螺钉与椎弓根螺钉的解剖学比较

目的：比较枢椎棘突螺钉和椎弓根螺钉的技术难度和相关解剖学参数,探讨枢椎棘突螺钉固定的可行性和安全性。方法：自2010年2月至7月,选取10具颈椎标本,男5具,女5具,年龄45～76岁,平均60.5岁。将标本俯卧,颈部置于中立位。从C1-C3剔除颈部后侧所有的软组织,以清楚地暴露枢椎侧块和峡部。枢椎椎体左右侧任意选择进行棘突螺钉和椎弓根螺钉固定,各10枚螺钉,置入直径为4.0mm的皮质骨螺钉。枢椎棘突螺钉以枢椎棘突螺钉的进钉点选择为棘突的基底部、棘突和椎板的交界处,进钉角度水平置钉,螺钉由对侧棘突基底部穿出,形成双层皮质固定;枢椎椎弓根螺钉进钉点为枢椎下关节突根部中点,钉道方向与矢状面夹角15°～20°,与横断面夹角约30°。螺钉置入后,使用多层螺旋CT扫描机对标本进行扫描重建。测量螺钉在骨内的实际深度,记录椎弓根螺钉和棘突螺钉置钉失败、穿破椎弓根、进入椎管或置入横突孔的螺钉数目。结果：枢椎棘突螺钉和椎弓根螺钉的置入均无明显的技术困难。棘突螺钉未见螺钉置入椎管和劈裂棘突,但椎弓根螺钉有1枚螺钉突出椎弓根外侧皮质,侵犯横突孔。枢椎棘突螺钉的平均钉道长度为（21.4±1.4）mm,稍短于枢椎椎弓根螺钉的（23.7±1.0）mm,但两者间差异无统计学意义（t=-4.387,P〉0.05）。结论：枢椎棘突基底部具有螺钉固定的可行性,枢椎棘突螺钉较椎弓根螺钉固定相对安全、简单。     

Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws

Background contextAchieving solid implant fixation to osteoporotic bone presents a clinical challenge. New techniques and devices are being designed to increase screw–bone purchase of pedicle screws in the lumbar spine via a novel cortical bone trajectory that may improve holding screw strength and minimize loosening. Preliminary clinical evidence suggests that this new trajectory provides screw interference that is equivalent to the more traditionally directed trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. However, a biomechanical study has not been performed to substantiate the early clinical results.PurposeEvaluate the mechanical competence of lumbar pedicle screws using a more medial-to-lateral path (ie, “cortical bone trajectory”) than the traditionally used path.Study designHuman cadaveric biomechanical study.MethodsEach vertebral level (L1–L5) was dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanned and had two pedicle screws inserted. On one side, the traditional medially directed trajectory was drilled and tapped. On the contralateral side, the newly proposed cortical bone trajectory was drilled and tapped. After qCT scanning, screws were inserted into their respective trajectories and pullout and toggle testing ensued. In uniaxial pullout, the pedicle screw was withdrawn vertically from the constrained bone until failure occurred. The contralateral side was tested in the same manner. In screw toggle testing, the vertebral body was rigidly constrained and a longitudinal rod was attached to each screw head. The rod was grasped using a hydraulic grip and a quasi-static, upward displacement was implemented until construct failure. The contralateral pedicle screw was tested in the same manner. Yield pullout (N) and stiffness (N/mm) as well as failure moment (N-m) were compared and bone mineral content and bone density data were correlated with the yield pullout force.ResultsNew cortical trajectory screws demonstrated a 30% increase in uniaxial yield pullout load relative to the traditional pedicle screws (p=0.080), although mixed loading demonstrated equivalency between the two trajectories. No significant difference in construct stiffness was noted between the two screw trajectories in either biomechanical test or were differences in failure moments (p=0.354). Pedicle screw fixation did not appear to depend on bone quality (DXA) yet positive correlations were demonstrated between trajectory and bone density scans (qCT) and pullout force for both pedicle screws.ConclusionsThe current study demonstrated that the new cortical trajectory and screw design have equivalent pullout and toggle characteristics compared with the traditional trajectory pedicle screw, thus confirming preliminary clinical evidence. The 30% increase in failure load of the cortical trajectory screw in uniaxial pullout and its juxtaposition to higher quality bone justify its use in patients with poor trabecular bone quality.     

Characteristics of pullout failure in conical and cylindrical pedicle screws after full insertion and back-out

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Biomechanical studies show that bone-mineral density, pedicle morphology, and screw thread area affect pedicle screw pullout failure. The current literature is based on studies of cylindrical pedicle screw designs. Conical screws have been introduced that may provide better "fit and fill" of the dorsal pedicle as well as improved resistance to screw bending failure. However, there is concern about loss of fixation if conical screws must be backed out after insertion. PURPOSE: To determine that conical screws have comparable initial stiffness and fixation strength compared with standard, cylindrical screws, and to assess whether conical screw fixation deteriorates when screws are backed out from full insertion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This biomechanical analysis compared pullout strength of cylindrical and conical pedicle screw designs, using porcine lumbar vertebrae in a paired testing format. METHODS: Porcine lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with conical and cylindrical pedicle screws with the same thread pitch, area and contour, and an equivalent diameter at the pedicle isthmus, 1.2 cm distal to the hub. Axial pullout was performed at 1.0 mm/minute displacement. Pullout loads, work and stiffness were recorded at 0.02-second intervals. Conical versus cylindrical screws were tested using three paired control configurations: fully inserted, backed out 180 degrees and backed out 360 degrees. Fully inserted values were compared with each set of back-out values to determine relative loss of fixation strength. Screw pullout data were analyzed using a Student's t test. RESULTS: Pullout loads in these porcine specimens were comparable to data from healthy human vertebrae. Conical screws provided a 17% increase in the pullout strength compared with cylindrical screws (P<.10) and a 50% increase in initial stiffness (P<.05) at full insertion. There was no loss in pullout strength, stiffness or work to failure when conical or cylindrical screws were backed out 180 or 360 degrees from full insertion. CONCLUSIONS: Conical screws offer improved initial fixation strength compared with cylindrical screws of the same size and thread design. Our results suggest that appropriately designed conical screws can be backed out 180 to 360 degrees for intraoperative adjustment without loss of pullout strength, stiffness or work to failure. Intraoperative adjustments of these specific conical screws less than 360 degrees should not affect initial fixation strength. These results may not hold true for screws with a smaller thread area or larger minor diameter.     

The biomechanical effect of pedicle screw hubbing on pullout resistance in the thoracic spine

Background contextThe biomechanical fixation strength afforded by pedicle screws has been strongly correlated with bone mineral density. It has been postulated that “hubbing” the head of the pedicle screw against the dorsal laminar cortex provides a load-sharing effect, thereby limiting cephalocaudad toggling and improving the pullout resistance of the pedicle screw.PurposeTo evaluate the pullout strength (POS) of monoaxial hubbed pedicle screws versus standard fixation in the thoracic spine.Study designBiomechanical investigation.MethodsTwenty-two human cadaveric thoracic vertebrae were acquired and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanned. Osteoporotic (n=16) and normal (n=6) specimens were instrumented with a 5.0×35-mm pedicle screw on one side in a standard fashion. In the contralateral pedicle, 5.0×30-mm screw was inserted with hubbing of the screw into the dorsal lamina. A difference in screw length was used to achieve equivalent depth of insertion. After 2,000 cycles of cephalocaudad toggling, screws were pulled out with the tensile force oriented to the midline of the spine and peak POS measured in newtons (N). Four additional specimens were subjected to microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) analysis to evaluate internal pedicle architecture after screw insertion.ResultsHubbed screws resulted in significantly lower POS (290.5±142.4 N) compared with standard pedicle screws (511.5±242.8 N; p=.00). This finding was evident in both normal and osteoporotic vertebrae based on independent subgroup post hoc analyses (p<.05). As a result of hubbing, half of the specimens fractured through the lamina or superior articular facet (SAF). No fractures occurred on the control side. There was no difference in mean POS for hubbed screws with and without fracture; however, further micro-CT analysis revealed the presence of internal fracture propagation for those specimens that did not have any external signs of failure.ConclusionsHubbing pedicle screws results in significantly decreased POS compared with conventional pedicle screws. Hubbing predisposes toward iatrogenic fracture of the dorsal lamina, transverse process, or SAF during insertion.     

后路寰椎螺钉固定的研究进展

后路寰椎螺钉固定包括寰椎侧块螺钉和寰椎后弓侧块螺钉固定。它们在解剖上是可行的,但需注意椎动脉沟底骨质最薄处的后弓厚度,避免损伤椎动脉及颈内动脉,术前必须常规行寰椎侧位X线及CT扫描帮助确定进钉点及进钉方向。螺钉有较好的拔出力(即使使用单皮质螺钉),并且寰椎侧块螺钉和枢椎关节突间螺钉以及棒连接的结构与经关节螺钉后路钢丝植骨块结构一样稳定。目前较为常用的进钉技术有3种:Harms、Xia、Gupta等的侧块螺钉技术,以及Tan和马向阳等的后弓侧块螺钉技术。临床结果显示:后路寰椎螺钉固定技术能即刻解除脊髓神经压迫、缓解症状,有较好的即刻稳定性,保留枕颈间的运动功能,并且有融合率极高,断钉率、疾病复发以及术后并发症极少等优越性。     

Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws versus spinous process screws in C2 vertebra: A cadaveric study

Background:

Biomechanical studies have shown C2 pedicle screw to be the most robust in insertional torque and pullout strength. However, C2 pedicle screw placement is still technically challenging. Smaller C2 pedicles or medial localization of the vertebral artery may preclude safe C2 pedicle screw placement in some patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the pullout strength of spinous process screws with pedicle screws in the C2.

Materials and Methods:

Eight fresh human cadaveric cervical spine specimens (C2) were harvested and subsequently frozen to −20°C. After being thawed to room temperature, each specimen was debrided of remaining soft tissue and labeled. A customs jig as used to clamp each specimen for screw insertion firmly. Screws were inserted into the vertebral body pairs on each side using one of two methods. The pedicle screws were inserted in usual manner as in previous biomechanical studies. The starting point for spinous process screw insertion was located at the junction of the lamina and the spinous process and the direction of the screw was about 0° caudally in the sagittal plane and about 0° medially in the axial plane. Each vertebrae was held in a customs jig, which was attached to material testing machine (Material Testing System Inc., Changchun, China). A coupling device that fit around the head of the screw was used to pull out each screw at a loading rate of 2 mm/min. The uniaxial load to failure was recorded in Newton''st dependent test (for paired samples) was used to test for significance.

Results:

The mean load to failure was 387 N for the special protection scheme and 465 N for the protection scheme without significant difference (t = −0.862, P = 0.403). In all but three instances (38%), the spinous process pullout values exceeded the values for the pedicle screws. The working distances for the spinous process screws was little shorter than pedicle screws in each C2 specimen.

Conclusion:

Spinous process screws provide comparable pullout strength to pedicle screws of the C2. Spinous process screws may provide an alternative to pedicle screws fixation, especially with unusual anatomy or stripped screws.     

下颈椎经关节螺钉联合侧块或椎弓根螺钉固定的效果

目的 探讨在下颈椎经颈后正中入路应用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉行内固定治疗的固定效果.方法 2003年2月至2007年10月,对22例患者通过后路应用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉行内固定治疗,男14例,女8例;年龄24～73岁,平均43岁.其中下颈椎创伤性骨折脱位13例,颈椎后纵韧带骨化症4例,颈椎管狭窄伴Ⅱ型齿突骨折1例,颈椎间盘突出伴椎管狭窄4例.结果 共置入经关节螺钉45枚,其中C4,5 2枚,C5,639枚,C6,74枚;共置入侧块螺钉12枚,C3、C4各6枚;共置入椎弓根螺钉41枚,其中C24枚,C32枚,C46枚,C721枚,T18枚.术中所有螺钉均成功置入,未出现椎动脉、神经根和脊髓损伤等置钉相关并发症.22例患者均获随访,随访时间10个月～3年8个月,平均17个月.植骨融合时间3～5个月,平均3.5个月.术后发现1例患者的2枚经关节螺钉松动,部分脱出.经加强颈托制动,术后4个月获得融合.结论 通过后路固定下颈椎时,采用经关节螺钉联合侧块螺钉或椎弓根螺钉固定,均可取得较好的固定效果.     

Characteristics of immediate and fatigue strength of a dual-threaded pedicle screw in cadaveric spines

Background contextNovel dual-threaded screws are configured with overlapping (doubled) threads only in the proximal shaft to improve proximal cortical fixation.PurposeTests were run to determine whether dual-threaded pedicle screws improve pullout resistance and increase fatigue endurance compared with standard pedicle screws.Study design/settingIn vitro strength and fatigue tests were performed in human cadaveric vertebrae and in polyurethane foam test blocks.Patient sampleSeventeen cadaveric lumbar vertebrae (14 pedicles) and 40 test sites in foam blocks were tested.Outcome measuresMeasures for comparison between standard and dual-threaded screws were bone mineral density (BMD), screw insertion torque, ultimate pullout force, peak load at cyclic failure, and pedicular side of first cyclic failure.MethodsFor each vertebral sample, dual-threaded screws were inserted in one pedicle and single-threaded screws were inserted in the opposite pedicle while recording insertion torque. In seven vertebrae, axial pullout tests were performed. In 10 vertebrae, orthogonal loads were cycled at increasing peak values until toggle exceeded threshold for failure. Insertion torque and pullout force were also recorded for screws placed in foam blocks representing healthy or osteoporotic bone porosity.ResultsIn bone, screw insertion torque was 183% greater with dual-threaded than with standard screws (p<.001). Standard screws pulled out at 93% of the force required to pull out dual-threaded screws (p=.42). Of 10 screws, five reached toggle failure first on the standard screw side, two screws failed first on the dual-threaded side, and three screws failed on both sides during the same round of cycling. In the high-porosity foam, screw insertion torque was 60% greater with the dual-threaded screw than with the standard screw (p=.005), but 14% less with the low-porosity foam (p=.07). Pullout force was 19% less with the dual-threaded screw than with the standard screw in the high-porosity foam (p=.115), but 6% greater with the dual-threaded screw in the low-porosity foam (p=.156).ConclusionsAlthough dual-threaded screws required higher insertion torque than standard screws in bone and low density foam, dual-threaded and standard pedicle screws exhibited equivalent axial pullout and cyclic fatigue endurance. Unlike single-threaded screws, the mechanical performance of dual-threaded screws in bone was relatively independent of BMD. In foam, the mechanical performance of both types of screws was highly dependent on porosity.