How Does a Novel Monoplanar Pedicle Screw Perform Biomechanically Relative to Monoaxial and Polyaxial Designs?

Background

Minimally invasive spinal fusions frequently require placement of pedicle screws through small incisions with limited visualization. Polyaxial pedicle screws are favored due to the difficulty of rod insertion with fixed monoaxial screws. Recently, a novel monoplanar screw became available that is mobile in the coronal plane to ease rod insertion but fixed in the sagittal plane to eliminate head slippage during flexion loads; however, the strength of this screw has not been established relative to other available screw designs.

Questions/purposes

We compared the static and dynamic load to failure in polyaxial, monoaxial, and monoplanar pedicle screws.

Methods

Six different manufacturers’ screws (42 total) were tested in three categories (polyaxial, n = 4; monoaxial, n = 1; monopolar, n = 1) utilizing titanium rods. An additional test was performed using cobalt-chromium rods with the monopolar screws only. Screws were embedded into polyethylene blocks and rods were attached using the manufacturers’ specifications. Static and dynamic testing was performed. Dynamic testing began at 80% of static yield strength at 1 Hz for 50,000 cycles.

Results

In static testing, monoaxial and monoplanar screws sustained higher loads than all polyaxial screw designs (range, 37%–425% higher; p < 0.001). The polyaxial screws failed at the head-screw interface, while the monoaxial and monoplanar screws failed by rod breakage in the static test. The dynamic loads to failure were greater with the monoplanar and monoaxial screws than with the polyaxial screws (range, 35%–560% higher; p < 0.001). With dynamic testing, polyaxial screws failed via screw-head slippage between 40% and 95% of static yield strength, while failures in monoaxial and monoplanar screws resulted from either screw shaft or rod breakage.

Conclusions

All polyaxial screws failed at the screw-head interface in static and dynamic testing and at lower values than monoaxial/monoplanar screw designs. Monoplanar and monoaxial screws failed at forces well above expected in vivo values; this was not the case for most polyaxial screws.

Clinical Relevance

Polyaxial screw heads slip on the screw shank at lower values than monoaxial or monoplanar screws, and this results in angular change between the rod and pedicle screw, which could cause loss of segmental lordosis. The novel monoplanar screw used in this study may combine ease of rod placement with sagittal plane strength.     

The Effect of Geometric Variations in Posterior-stabilized Knee Designs on Motion Characteristics Measured in a Knee Loading Machine

Background

In different posterior-stabilized (PS) total knees, there are considerable variations in condylar surface radii and cam-post geometry. To what extent these variations affect kinematics is not known. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined ideal kinematics for a total knee.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of this study were to determine (1) what the kinematic differences are caused by geometrical variations between PS total knee designs in use today; and (2) what design characteristics will produce kinematics that closely resemble that of the normal anatomic knee.

Methods

Four current PS designs with different geometries and one experimental asymmetric PS design, with a relatively conforming medial side, were tested in a purpose-built machine. The machine applied combinations of compressive, shear, and torque forces at a sequence of flexion angles to represent a range of everyday activities, consistent with the ASTM standard test for measuring constraint. The femorotibial contact points, the neutral path of motion, and the AP and internal-external laxities were used as the kinematic indicators.

Results

The PS designs showed major differences in motion characteristics among themselves and with motion data from anatomic knees determined in a previous study. Abnormalities in the current designs included symmetric mediolateral motion, susceptibility to excessive AP medial laxity, and reduced laxity in high flexion. The asymmetric-guided motion design alleviated some but not all of the abnormalities.

Conclusions

Current PS designs showed kinematic abnormalities to a greater or lesser extent. An asymmetric design may provide a path to achieving a closer match to anatomic kinematics.

Clinical Relevance

One criterion for the evaluation of PS total knees is how closely the kinematics of the prosthesis resemble that of the anatomic knee, because this is likely to affect the quality of function.