胸椎椎弓根螺钉固定失败经椎弓根外入路补救的力学测试

目的 比较胸椎椎弓根螺钉椎弓根入路，椎弓根外入路置钉以及置钉失败后椎弓根入路，椎弓根外入路补救置钉的抗拔出力。方法 4具书本脊柱标本（T6-11）分解为单椎体（附双侧肋骨）24个。根据配对随机分组的原则进行标本分组，测试各组的抗拔出力，将椎弓根入路置钉组成的抗拔出力结果作为对照组数据。结果 椎弓根入路补救组抗拔出力和椎弓根入路组，椎弓根外入路组差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。结论椎弓根螺钉穿破内侧壁导致的胸椎椎弓根螺钉固定失败，可选择椎弓根外入路的方式进行补救。     

Biomechanical study on pullout strength of thoracic extrapedicular screw fixation

Objective:To identify the biomechanical feasibility of the thoracic extrapedicular approach to the placement of screws. Methods:Five fresh adult cadaveric thoracic spine from T1 to T8 were harvested. The screw was inserted either by pedicular approach or extrapedicular approach. The result was observed and the pullout strength by pedicular screw approach and extrapedicular screw approach via sagittal axis of the vertebrale was measured and compared statistically. Results:In thoracic pedicular approach, the pullout strength of pedicle screw was 1001.23 N±220 N (288.2-1561.7 N) and that of thoracic extrapedicular screw approach was 827.01 N±260 N when screw was inserted into the vertebrae through transverse process,and 954.25 N±254 N when screw was inserted into the vertebrae through the lateral cortex of the pedicle. Compared with pedicular group, the pullout strength in extrapedicular group was decreased by 4.7% inserted through transverse process (P>0.05) and by 17.3% inserted through the lateral cortex (P<0.05). The mean pullout strength by extrapedicular approach was decreased by 11.04% as compared with pedicular approach (P<0.05). Conclusions:It is feasible biomechanically to use extrapedicular screw technique to insert pedicular screws in the thoracic spine when it is hard to insert by pedicular approach.     

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.     

Pullout strength of misplaced pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae - A cadaveric study

Background:

The objective of this cadaveric study was to analyze the effects of iatrogenic pedicle perforations from screw misplacement on the mean pullout strength of lower thoracic and lumbar pedicle screws. We also investigated the effect of bone mineral density (BMD), diameter of pedicle screws, and the region of spine on the pullout strength of pedicle screws.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty fresh human cadaveric vertebrae (D10–L2) were harvested. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan of vertebrae was done for BMD. Titanium pedicle screws of different diameters (5.2 and 6.2 mm) were inserted in the thoracic and lumbar segments after dividing the specimens into three groups: a) standard pedicle screw (no cortical perforation); b) screw with medial cortical perforation; and c) screw with lateral cortical perforation. Finally, pullout load of pedicle screws was recorded using INSTRON Universal Testing Machine.

Results:

Compared with standard placement, medially misplaced screws had 9.4% greater mean pullout strength and laterally misplaced screws had 47.3% lesser mean pullout strength. The pullout strength of the 6.2 mm pedicle screws was 33% greater than that of the 5.2 mm pedicle screws. The pullout load of pedicle screws in lumbar vertebra was 13.9% greater than that in the thoracic vertebra (P = 0.105), but it was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference between pullout loads of vertebra with different BMD (P = 0.901).

Conclusion:

The mean pullout strength was less with lateral misplaced pedicle screws while medial misplaced pedicle screw had more pullout strength. The pullout load of 6.2 mm screws was greater than that of 5.2 mm pedicle screws. No significant correlation was found between bone mineral densities and the pullout strength of vertebra. Similarly, the pullout load of screw placed in thoracic and lumbar vertebrae was not significantly different.     

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.     

Pullout resistance of conventional pedicle screw implantation in comparison to fluoroscopic computer-assisted technique

AIM: Aim of the study was to compare pullout resistance of pedicle screws after conventional and fluoroscopic computer-assisted implantation in the cadaveric thoracic and lumbar spine. METHODS: Pedicle screws were inserted in a total of 10 vertebrae of different human specimens: 10 screws were placed using conventional technique (group 1) and 10 screws were inserted with fluoroscopic computer-assisted system contralaterally (group 2). Then pedicle screws were evaluated for biomechanical axial pullout resistance. RESULTS: Mean pullout force was 232 N (range 60-600 N) in group 1 and 353 N (range 112-625 N) in group 2. The difference was significant (p=0,0425). CONCLUSION: Fluoroscopic navigated implantation of pedicle screws increases the pullout strength in thoracic and lumbar cadaveric spines as compared with conventional methods.     

Improving the pullout strength of pedicle screws by screw coupling

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of pedicle screw coupling on the pullout strength of pedicle screws in the osteoporotic spine. The vertebral bone mineral density (BMD) of 33 cadaveric lumbar vertebrae were measured by quantitative computed tomography. Pedicle screws were inserted into each pedicle. The pullout strength and displacement of the screws, without coupling and with single or double couplers, were studied, and the relationship between pullout strength and BMD was analyzed. The average pullout strength of the pedicle screws without screw coupling was 909.3 +/- 188.6 N (n = 9), that coupled with a single coupler was 1,409.0 +/- 469.1 N (n = 9), and that with double couplers was 1,494.0 +/- 691.6 N (n = 9). The pullout strength of the screws coupled with single or double couplers was significantly greater than that of screws without couplers (p < 0.01); however, there was no significant difference between the groups of single and double couplers. The improvement of pullout strength by screw coupling was significant in a test group with BMD of more than 90 mg/ml (p < 0.01), but was not in the group with BMD less than 90 mg/ml (p = 0.55). These results suggest that the coupling of pedicle screws improves pullout strength; however, the effect tends to be less significant in severely osteoporotic spines.     

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.     

两种长度的颈椎椎弓根螺钉与侧块螺钉拔出试验比较

目的:比较两种长度的颈椎椎弓根螺钉和侧块螺钉的抗拔出力,探讨颈椎经椎弓根短螺钉固定的可行性。方法:5具C3~C5共15节新鲜颈椎标本,用长度为28mm和20mm的皮质骨螺钉分别置入椎弓根,并用20mm的螺钉行侧块双皮质固定,螺钉进入侧块深度约14mm。行拔出试验,比较螺钉的最大轴向拔出力。结果:椎弓根长螺钉的最大拔出力为650N,椎弓根短螺钉为585N,两者比较无显著性差异(P>0.01);侧块螺钉的最大拔出力为360N,与椎弓根短螺钉比较有显著性差异(P<0.0001)。结论:颈椎椎弓根短螺钉固定可提供足够的稳定性,其安全性相对较高。     

Evaluation of calcium sulfate paste for augmentation of lumbar pedicle screw pullout strength.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Many authors have evaluated the components responsible for ultimate pullout strength of pedicle screws. In these studies, one important variable has been the screw fixation. Because pedicle screw fixation has increased in popularity over recent years, so has the need for augmentation in difficult situations. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been established as the gold standard in terms of strength of fixation but has the potential for severe complications when applied in spine surgery. Calcium sulfate is an alternative to PMMA, because it lacks the exothermic reaction, is potentially osteoconductive and is resorbed by the body in 30 to 60 days. PURPOSE: To determine the strength of a new calcium sulfate cement in terms of pedicle screw augmentation. The purpose was to evaluate calcium sulfate versus PMMA in terms of pullout strength. PMMA was considered the gold standard in terms of strength for this experiment. STUDY DESIGN: Lumbar vertebrae implanted with pedicle screws were subjected to axial pullout tests. The force required to cause implant failure was measured and compared for three methods of fixation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Force to failure (Newtons) for each pedicle test was recorded and analyzed with results from similarly augmented pedicles. METHODS: Lumbar vertebrae were harvested from four cadavers and implanted with pedicle screws. These screws were either placed in native bone or augmented with either calcium sulfate paste or PMMA. In those pedicles that had augmentation, the material was permitted to set for a minimum of 24 hours. Axial pullout tests were then performed using an MTS (Materials Testing System Corporation, Minneapolis, MN) testing machine. The screws were pulled out over a distance of up to 6 mm at 0.25 mm/sec. This rate and distance ensured failure in each case. The load to failure was recorded for each pedicle. RESULTS: Calcium sulfate augmentation improved pedicle screw pullout strength significantly when compared with native bone (p=.0003). This represented an average increase of 167% over the native bone. Likewise, PMMA improved the pullout strength significantly over native bone (p<.0001) for an average increase of 199%. There were no significant differences between the calcium sulfate and PMMA augmentation (p=.0791), although the PMMA averaged 119% of the strength of calcium sulfate. CONCLUSIONS: Although PMMA is considered the gold standard in terms of fixation strength, its use around the spine has been limited because of concern over complications. The calcium sulfate bone paste tested in this study demonstrated strength similar to PMMA without the major risks to the spinal cord. In addition, the calcium sulfate paste allows for possible osteoconduction to aid in spinal fusion. Further study is needed to determine the applicability of this calcium sulfate paste in the clinical setting of spine surgery.     

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 comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone

Many salvage options for failed thoracic pedicle screws exist including the use of a different trajectory or the augmentation of the screw with polymethylmethacrylate cement. Although polymethylmethacrylate immediately increases the construct stiffness and the pull-out strength, it may cause bone necrosis, toxin relaxation, and/or neural injury. On the other hand, calcium sulfate bone grafts have a high potential for biologic incorporation and no thermal damage effect. In the current study, polyaxial pedicle screws were first inserted with a straightforward approach on both sides in 17 fresh human cadaveric thoracic vertebrae. The maximal insertion torque for each screw was measured and then the pull-out strengths were recorded. Afterward, these pedicle screws were randomly assigned to be replaced either by graft augmentation or by anatomic trajectory technique for salvage. The graft-augmented screws were placed using the previous holes. The maximum insertional torque for each anatomic trajectory screw was measured. Finally, the pull-out strengths of the revision screws were recorded. The mean maximum insertional torque decreased with the anatomic trajectory salvage technique when compared with the straightforward approach, 0.23 versus 0.38 Nm, respectively (P=0.003). The anatomic trajectory revision resulted in decreased pull-out strength when compared with the pull-out strength of the straightforward technique, 297 versus 469 N, respectively (P=0.003).The calcium sulfate graft augmentation increased the pull-out strength when compared with the pull-out strength of the straightforward technique, 680 versus 477 N, respectively (P=0.017). The mean pull-out strength ratio of revised screw to original was 0.71 for anatomic trajectory and 1.8 for graft-augmented screws, a statistically significant difference (P=0.002).     

Stability of pedicle screws after kyphoplasty augmentation: an experimental study to compare transpedicular screw fixation in soft and cured kyphoplasty cement

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this cadaver study was to compare the stability of pedicle screws after implantation in soft or cured kyphoplasty cement. METHODS: Pedicle screws were inserted in a total of 30 thoracolumbar vertebrae of 10 different human specimens: 10 screws were implanted in nonaugmented vertebrae (group 1), each 10 screws were placed in soft (group 2) and cured (group 3) cement. Pedicle screws were than evaluated for biomechanical axial pullout resistance. RESULTS: Mean axial pullout strength was 232 N (range 60-600 N) in group 1, 452 N (range 60-1125 N) in group 2 and 367 N (range 112-840 N) in group 3. The paired Student t-test demonstrated a significant difference between pullout strength of groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.0300). Between pullout strength of groups 1 and 3 and between groups 2 and 3 no significant difference was seen. CONCLUSION: We achieved a 1.9 times higher pullout strength with kyphoplasty augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae compared with the pullout strength of nonaugmented vertebrae. Implantation of pedicle screws in cured cement is a sufficient method. With this method we found a 1.6 times higher pullout strength then in nonaugmented vertebrae.     

Cervical spine pedicle screws: a biomechanical comparison of two insertion techniques

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical testing of the pullout strengths of pedicle screws placed by two different techniques in adult human cadaveric cervical spines. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is a significant difference in screw purchase of two commonly proposed methods of cervical pedicle screw insertion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Wiring techniques remain the gold standard for posterior cervical fixation. However, absent or deficient posterior elements may dictate the use of alternative fixation techniques. Cervical pedicle screws have been shown to have significantly higher pullout strength than lateral mass screws. METHODS: Fifty fresh disarticulated human vertebrae (C3-C7) were evaluated with computed tomography for anatomic disease and pedicle morphometry. The right and left pedicles were randomly assigned to either a standard method or the Abumi insertion method. In the latter technique the cortex and cancellous bone of lateral mass are removed with a high-speed burr, which provides a direct view of the pedicle introitus. The pedicle is then probed and tapped and a 3.5-mm cortical screw inserted. Each screw was subjected to a uniaxial load to failure. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean pullout resistance between the Abumi (696 N) and standard (636.5 N) insertion techniques (P = 0.41). There was no difference in pullout resistance between vertebral levels or within vertebral levels. Two (4%) minor pedicle wall violations were observed. CONCLUSION: In selected circumstances pedicle screw instrumentation of the cervical spine may be used to manage complex deformities and patterns of instability. Surgeons need not be concerned about reduced screw purchase when deciding between the Abumi method and its alternatives.     

Characteristics of pedicle screw loading. Effect of sagittal insertion angle on intrapedicular bending moments.

STUDY DESIGN: A bending analysis of pedicle screws inserted into vertebral body analogues. Intravertebral and intrapedicular pedicle screw bending moments were studied as a function of sagittal insertion angle. OBJECTIVES: To determine how the pedicle screw bending moment is affected by changes in the insertion angle. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a significant incidence of failure when pedicle screws are used to instrument unstable spinal segments. Extrinsic factors that affect screw bending failure have been poorly characterized. Previous work has demonstrated that intrapedicular pedicle screw bending moments are significantly affected by the sagittal location and depth of pedicle screw placement. METHODS: Pedicle screw transducers were inserted in analogue vertebrae at one of three orientations: 7 degrees cephalad (toward the superior endplate), 7 degrees caudal (toward the inferior endplate), or parallel to the superior endplate (control). An axial load was applied to the superior endplate of the vertebra, and screw bending moments were recorded directly from the transducers. RESULTS: Screws angled 7 degrees cephalad developed significantly greater mean intrapedicular bending moments compared with screws inserted caudal or control screws. There was no significant difference in bending moments realized within the vertebral body for the three screw positions. CONCLUSIONS: Angulating pedicle screws toward the superior endplate increased bending moments within the pedicle. If attention to optimal screw insertion technique can reduce bending moments and potential for screw failure without increasing morbidity, surgical risk, or operative time, then proper insertion technique takes on new importance.     

The effect of pedicle screw redirection after lateral wall breach—a biomechanical study using human lumbar vertebrae

Background contextCurrently, pedicle screw segmental fixation of the spine is considered a standard of care for a number of conditions. Most surgeons employ a free-hand technique using various intraoperative modalities to improve pedicle screw accuracy. Despite continued improvements in technique, pedicle breach remains a frequent occurrence. Once a breach is detected intraoperatively, the most common corrective maneuver is to medially redirect the pedicle screw into the pedicle. To our knowledge, the biomechanical impact of medially redirecting a pedicle screw after a lateral pedicle breach has not been examined.PurposeTo compare the fixation strength of perfectly placed pedicle screws to the fixation strength of pedicle screws that were correctly placed after having been redirected (RD) following a lateral pedicle breach.Study design/settingA biomechanical study using human lumbar vertebrae.MethodsTen fresh human lumbar vertebrae were isolated from five donors. Each vertebra was instrumented with a monoaxial pedicle screw into each pedicle using two different techniques. On one side, a perfect center-center (CC) screw path was created using direct visualization and fluoroscopy. A 6.0-mm-diameter cannulated tap and a pedicle probe were used to develop the pedicle for the 7.0-mm-diameter by 45-mm-long cannulated pedicle screw, which was placed using a digital torque driver. On the contralateral side, an intentional lateral pedicle wall breach was created at the pedicle-vertebral body junction using a guide wire, a 6.0-mm-diameter cannulated tap, and a pedicle probe. This path was then redirected into a CC position, developed, and instrumented with a 7.0-mm-diameter by 45-mm-long cannulated pedicle screw: the RD screw. For each pedicle screw, we assessed four outcome measures: maximal torque, seating torque, screw loosening, and post-loosening axial pullout. Screw loosening and axial pullout were assessed using an MTS machine.ResultsThe biomechanical cost of a lateral pedicle breach and the requirement to redirect the pedicle screw are as follows: an overall drop of 28% (p<.002) in maximal insertion torque and 25% (p<.049) in seating torque, a drop of 25% (p<.040) in resistance to screw loosening, and a drop in axial pullout force of 11% (p<.047).ConclusionsCompared with a CC lumbar pedicle screw, an RD lumbar pedicle screw placed after a lateral wall breach is significantly weaker in terms of maximal insertional torque, seating torque, screw loosening force, and axial pullout strength. These significant decreases in biomechanical properties are clearly important when RD pedicle screws are placed at the cephalad or caudal end of a long construct. In this situation, augmentation of the RD screw is an option.     

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.     

Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Pedicle screws have been shown to be superior to hooks in the lumbar spine, but few studies have addressed their use in the thoracic spine. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to biomechanically evaluate the pullout strength of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine and compare them to laminar hooks. STUDY DESING/SETTING: Twelve vertebrae (T1-T12) were harvested from each of five embalmed human cadavers (n=60). The age of the donors averaged 83+8.5 years. After bone mineral density had been measured in the vertebrae (mean=0.47 g/cm(3)), spines were disarticulated. Some pedicles were damaged during disarticulation or preparation for testing, so that 100 out of a possible 120 pullout tests were performed. METHODS: Each vertebra was secured using a custom-made jig, and a posteriorly directed force was applied to either the screw or the claw. Constructs were ramped to failure at 3 mm/min using a Mini Bionix II materials testing machine (MTS, Eden Prairie, MN). RESULTS: Pedicle claws had an average pullout strength of 577 N, whereas the pullout strength of pedicle screws averaged 309 N. Hooks installed using the claw method in the thoracic spine had an overwhelming advantage in pullout strength versus pedicle screws. Even in extremely osteoporotic bone, the claw withstood 88% greater pullout load. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that hooks should be considered when supplemental instrumentation is required in thoracic vertebrae, especially in osteoporotic bone.     

Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine

While the biomechanical properties of pedicle screws have proven to be superior in the lumbar spine, little is known concerning pullout strength of pedicle screws in comparison to hooks in the thoracic spine. In vitro biomechanical pullout testing was performed to evaluate the axial pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine with regard to surgical correction techniques in scoliosis. Nine human cadaveric thoracic spines were harvested and disarticulated. To simulate a typical posterior segmental scoliosis instrumentation, standard pedicle hooks were used between T4 and T8 and supralaminar hooks between T9 and T12 and tested against pedicle screws. The pedicle screws were loaded strictly longitudinal to their axis; the hooks were loaded perpendicular to the intended rod direction. In total, 90 pullout tests were performed. Average pullout strength of the pedicle screws was significantly higher than in the hook group (T4-T8: 531 N versus 321 N, T9-T12: 807 N versus 600 N, p < 0.05). Both screw diameter and the bone mineral density (BMD) had significant influence on the pullout strength in the screw group. For scoliosis correction, pedicle screws might be beneficial, especially for rigid thoracic curves, since they are significantly more resistant to axial pullout than both pedicle and laminar hooks.     

Mechanical performance of cylindrical and dual core pedicle screws in calf and human vertebrae

Introduction Failure of pedicle screws by loosening and back out remains a significant clinical problem. Pedicle screw fixation is determined by bone mineral density, pedicle morphology and screw design. The objective of this study was to compare the holding strength of newly developed dual core pedicle screws having a cylindrical design in terms of outer diameter and two cylindrical inner core regions connected by a conical transition with conventional cylindrical pedicle screws.Materials and methods Fifty bovine lumbar vertebrae and 40 human lumbar vertebrae were used. Five different screws were tested in nine experimental “settings” and ten specimens each. The screws were tested for cranial displacement and pullout strength before and after 5,000 cycles of cranio-caudal loading. The tests included a setting with fully inserted and 4 mm backed out screws. For statistical analysis the incomplete balanced block design was used.Results Cyclic loading led to a decrease of pullout force between 24 and 31% and a 9% increase of displacement. The cylindrical screw designs were affected more than the dual core designs. The pullout force of cylindrical screws was smaller than of dual core screws. Even in a backed out condition dual core screws showed a significantly smaller displacement than cylindrical screws.Conclusion Pedicle screws with the dual core design provide good anchorage in the vertebra.