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.     

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.     

可注射磷酸钙骨水泥对不同骨质椎弓根螺钉的强化作用

目的评价不同骨质疏松程度条件下,可注射性磷酸钙骨水泥对椎弓根螺钉稳定性强化作用,为其应用于合并有骨质疏松症的患者脊柱手术提供力学理论基础。方法采用新鲜尸体脊柱标本,根据骨密度检测结果,按临床诊断标准分成骨质正常、骨量减少、骨质疏松和重度骨质疏松四个水平;然后,每个骨密度水平,分直接置入椎弓根螺钉（对照组）和用可注射性磷酸钙骨水泥强化钉道后置入椎弓根螺钉（钉道强化组）,各12枚,进行螺钉轴向拔出实验,测定最大拔出力、刚度和能量吸收值三项指标,进行组间的对比分析。结果骨密度水平从正常下降到重度疏松程度,最大拔出力、刚度、能量吸收值均随之下降,同种置钉方法组间存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）。骨质疏松条件下钉道强化组最大拔出力、刚度、能量吸收值与骨量减少条件下对照组的比较,两者无显著性差异（P〉0.05）;但是,重度骨质疏松条件下钉道强化组的最大拔出力、刚度、能量吸收值均显著性低于骨量减少条件下对照组的（P〈0.05）。结论可注射性磷酸钙骨水泥强化钉道后可以提高椎弓根螺钉的稳定性,尤其是骨质疏松条件下经钉道强化后可以达到需要固定强度。     

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.     

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.     

Tapping insertional torque allows prediction for better pedicle screw fixation and optimal screw size selection

Background contextThere is currently no reliable technique for intraoperative assessment of pedicle screw fixation strength and optimal screw size. Several studies have evaluated pedicle screw insertional torque (IT) and its direct correlation with pullout strength. However, there is limited clinical application with pedicle screw IT as it must be measured during screw placement and rarely causes the spine surgeon to change screw size. To date, no study has evaluated tapping IT, which precedes screw insertion, and its ability to predict pedicle screw pullout strength.PurposeThe objective of this study was to investigate tapping IT and its ability to predict pedicle screw pullout strength and optimal screw size.Study designIn vitro human cadaveric biomechanical analysis.MethodsTwenty fresh-frozen human cadaveric thoracic vertebral levels were prepared and dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry scanned for bone mineral density (BMD). All specimens were osteoporotic with a mean BMD of 0.60±0.07 g/cm². Five specimens (n=10) were used to perform a pilot study, as there were no previously established values for optimal tapping IT. Each pedicle during the pilot study was measured using a digital caliper as well as computed tomography measurements, and the optimal screw size was determined to be equal to or the first size smaller than the pedicle diameter. The optimal tap size was then selected as the tap diameter 1 mm smaller than the optimal screw size. During optimal tap size insertion, all peak tapping IT values were found to be between 2 in-lbs and 3 in-lbs. Therefore, the threshold tapping IT value for optimal pedicle screw and tap size was determined to be 2.5 in-lbs, and a comparison tapping IT value of 1.5 in-lbs was selected. Next, 15 test specimens (n=30) were measured with digital calipers, probed, tapped, and instrumented using a paired comparison between the two threshold tapping IT values (Group 1: 1.5 in-lbs; Group 2: 2.5 in-lbs), randomly assigned to the left or right pedicle on each specimen. Each pedicle was incrementally tapped to increasing size (3.75, 4.00, 4.50, and 5.50 mm) until the threshold value was reached based on the assigned group. Pedicle screw size was determined by adding 1 mm to the tap size that crossed the threshold torque value. Torque measurements were recorded with each revolution during tap and pedicle screw insertion. Each specimen was then individually potted and pedicle screws pulled out “in-line” with the screw axis at a rate of 0.25 mm/sec. Peak pullout strength (POS) was measured in Newtons (N).ResultsThe peak tapping IT was significantly increased (50%) in Group 2 (3.23±0.65 in-lbs) compared with Group 1 (2.15±0.56 in-lbs) (p=.0005). The peak screw IT was also significantly increased (19%) in Group 2 (8.99±2.27 in-lbs) compared with Group 1 (7.52±2.96 in-lbs) (p=.02). The pedicle screw pullout strength was also significantly increased (23%) in Group 2 (877.9±235.2 N) compared with Group 1 (712.3±223.1 N) (p=.017). The mean pedicle screw diameter was significantly increased in Group 2 (5.70±1.05 mm) compared with Group 1 (5.00±0.80 mm) (p=.0002). There was also an increased rate of optimal pedicle screw size selection in Group 2 with 9 of 15 (60%) pedicle screws compared with Group 1 with 4 of 15 (26.7%) pedicle screws within 1 mm of the measured pedicle width. There was a moderate correlation for tapping IT with both screw IT (r=0.54; p=.002) and pedicle screw POS (r=0.55; p=.002).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that tapping IT directly correlates with pedicle screw IT, pedicle screw pullout strength, and optimal pedicle screw size. Therefore, tapping IT may be used during thoracic pedicle screw instrumentation as an adjunct to preoperative imaging and clinical experience to maximize fixation strength and optimize pedicle “fit and fill” with the largest screw possible. However, further prospective, in vivo studies are necessary to evaluate the intraoperative use of tapping IT to predict screw loosening/complications.     

Pedicle screw augmentation with bone cement enforced Vicryl mesh

Achieving sufficient mechanical purchase of pedicle screws in osteoporotic or previously instrumented bone is technically and biologically challenging. Techniques using different kinds of pedicle screws or methods of cement augmentation have been used to address this challenge, but are associated with difficult revisions and complications. The purpose of this biomechanical trial was to investigate the use of biocompatible textile materials in combination with bone cement to augment pullout strength of pedicle screws while reducing the risk of cement extrusion. Pedicle screws (6/40 mm) were either augmented with standard bone‐cement (Palacos LV + G) in one group (BC, n = 13) or with bone‐cement enforced by Vicryl mesh in another group (BCVM, n = 13) in osteoporosis‐like saw bone blocks. Pullout testing was subsequently performed. In a second experimental phase, similar experiments were performed using human cadaveric lumbar vertebrae (n = 10). In osteoporosis‐like saw bone blocks, a mean screw pullout force of 350 N (±125) was significantly higher with the Bone cement (BC) compared to bone‐cement enforced by Vicryl mesh (BCVM) technique with 240 N (±64) (p = 0.030). In human cadaveric lumbar vertebrae the mean screw pullout force was 784 ± 366 N with BC and not statistically different to BCVM with 757 ± 303 N (p = 0.836). Importantly, cement extrusion was only observed in the BC group (40%) and never with the BCVM technique. In vitro textile reinforcement of bone cement for pedicle screw augmentation successfully reduced cement extrusion compared to conventionally delivered bone cement. The mechanical strength of textile delivered cement constructs was more reproducible than standard cementing. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:212–216, 2018.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Pullout resistance of thoracic extrapedicular screws used as a salvage procedure.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Extrapedicular screws are placed more laterally than intrapedicular screws and pass through the transverse process or rib head before entering the vertebral body. These screws are sometimes placed to salvage failed pedicle screws, but the change in pullout resistance of extrapedicular screws after salvage has not been quantified. PURPOSE: To quantify the pullout resistance of thoracic extrapedicular screws compared with intrapedicular screws and the pullout resistance of newly inserted screws compared with extrapedicular screws used as salvage for failed intrapedicular screws. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro paired comparison of screw pullout resistance in isolated thoracic vertebrae. METHODS: Tapered monoaxial pedicle screws were inserted in the left or right pedicle of 11 human cadaveric thoracic vertebrae. An extrapedicular screw was inserted on the contralateral side. Both screws were pulled out axially at 0.5 mm/s using a servohydraulic test frame while applied load was recorded. Then a fresh extrapedicular screw was inserted as a salvage screw on the intrapedicular screw side and pulled out. RESULTS: In uncompromised vertebrae, the pullout strength of extrapedicular screws was 80+/-32% of that of intrapedicular screws (p=.073, repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance/Tukey). Salvage screws restored pullout strength to 65+/-30% of that of intrapedicular screws (p=.003). CONCLUSIONS: Extrapedicular screws provided comparable but slightly lower pullout resistance to intrapedicular screws in uncompromised vertebrae. They are therefore a feasible salvage technique when a compromised pedicle precludes reinsertion of an intrapedicular screw, but the salvage screw is significantly weaker than the original screw.     

Suture anchor fixation strength in osteopenic versus non-osteopenic bone for rotator cuff repair

Introduction

Rotator cuff tears are increasing with age. Does osteopenic bone have an influence on the pullout strength of suture anchors?

Materials and methods

SPIRALOK 5.0 mm (DePuy Mitek), Super Revo 5 mm and UltraSorb (both ConMed Linvatec) suture anchors were tested in six osteopenic and six healthy human cadaveric humeri. Incremental cyclic loading was performed. The ultimate failure load, anchor displacement, and the mode of failure were recorded.

Results

In the non-osteopenic bone group, the absorbable SPIRALOK 5.0 mm achieved a significantly better pullout strength (274 N ± 29 N, mean ± SD) than the titanium anchor Super Revo 5 mm (188 N ± 34 N, mean ± SD), and the tilting anchor UltraSorb (192 N ± 34 N, mean ± SD). In the osteopenic bone group no significant difference in the pullout strength was found. The failure mechanisms, such as anchor pullout, rupture at eyelet, suture breakage and breakage of eyelet, varied between the anchors.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrates that, in osteopenic bone, absorbable suture anchors do not have lower pullout strengths than metal anchors. In normal bone, the bioabsorbable anchor in this study even outperformed the non-absorbable anchor.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The biomechanical consequences of rod reduction on pedicle screws: should it be avoided?

Background contextRod contouring is frequently required to allow for appropriate alignment of pedicle screw-rod constructs. When residual mismatch is still present, a rod persuasion device is often used to achieve further rod reduction. Despite its popularity and widespread use, the biomechanical consequences of this technique have not been evaluated.PurposeTo evaluate the biomechanical fixation strength of pedicle screws after attempted reduction of a rod-pedicle screw mismatch using a rod persuasion device.MethodsFifteen 3-level, human cadaveric thoracic specimens were prepared and scanned for bone mineral density. Osteoporotic (n=6) and normal (n=9) specimens were instrumented with 5.0-mm–diameter pedicle screws; for each pair of comparison level tested, the bilateral screws were equal in length, and the screw length was determined by the thoracic level and size of the vertebra (35 to 45 mm). Titanium 5.5-mm rods were contoured and secured to the pedicle screws at the proximal and distal levels. For the middle segment, the rod on the right side was intentionally contoured to create a 5-mm residual gap between the inner bushing of the pedicle screw and the rod. A rod persuasion device was then used to engage the setscrew. The left side served as a control with perfect screw/rod alignment. After 30 minutes, constructs were disassembled and vertebrae individually potted. The implants were pulled in-line with the screw axis with peak pullout strength (POS) measured in Newton (N). For the proximal and distal segments, pedicle screws on the right side were taken out and reinserted through the same trajectory to simulate screw depth adjustment as an alternative to rod reduction.ResultsPedicle screws reduced to the rod generated a 48% lower mean POS (495±379 N) relative to the controls (954±237 N) (p<.05) and significantly decreased work energy to failure (p<.05). Nearly half (n=7) of the pedicle screws had failed during the reduction attempt with visible pullout of the screw. After reduction, decreased POS was observed in both normal (p<.05) and osteoporotic (p<.05) bone. Back out and reinsertion of the screw resulted in no significant difference in mean POS, stiffness, and work energy to failure (p>.05).ConclusionsIn circumstances where a rod is not fully seated within the pedicle screw, the use of a rod persuasion device decreases the overall POS and work energy to failure of the screw or results in outright failure. Further rod contouring or correction of pedicle screw depth of insertion may be warranted to allow for appropriate alignment of the longitudinal rods.     

Feasibility of using tapping torque during lumbar pedicle screw insertion to predict screw fixation strength

BackgroundRigid pedicle screw fixation is mandatory for achieving successful spinal fusion; however, there is no reliable method predicting screw fixation before screw insertion. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of measurement of tapping torque to predict pedicle screw fixation.MethodsFirst, different densities of polyurethane foam were used to measure tapping torque. The insertional torque during pedicle screw insertion and axial pullout strength were measured and compared between under-tapped and same-tapped groups. Next, for in vivo study, the tapping and insertional torque of lumbar pedicle screws using the cortical bone trajectory technique were measured intraoperatively in 45 consecutive patients. Then, correlations between tapping torque, the bone mineral density of the femoral neck and lumbar vertebrae, and insertional torque were investigated.ResultsEx vivo tapping torque significantly correlated with the insertional torque and pullout strength regardless of tapping sizes (r = 0.98, p < 0.001). The mean in vivo tapping and insertional torque were 1.48 ± 0.73 and 2.48 ± 1.25 Nm, respectively (p < 0.001). Insertional torque significantly correlated with tapping torque and two BMD parameters, and the correlation coefficient of tapping torque (r = 0.83, p < 0.001) was higher than those of femoral neck BMD (r = 0.59, p < 0.001) and lumbar BMD (r = 0.39, p < 0.001).ConclusionsTapping torque is a reliable predictor of pedicle screw fixation and allows surgeons to improve the integrity of the bone-screw interface by making modification prior to actual screw insertion.     

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.