Carbon fiber-reinforced pedicle screws reduce artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with lumbar spondylodesis.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Artifacts
Benzophenones
Biocompatible Materials
Carbon Fiber
Cross-Sectional Studies
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Ketones
Lumbar Vertebrae
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Pedicle Screws
Polyethylene Glycols
Polymers
Retrospective Studies
Spinal Diseases
/ diagnostic imaging
Spinal Fusion
/ instrumentation
Titanium
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 09 2020
30 09 2020
Historique:
received:
12
01
2020
accepted:
09
09
2020
entrez:
1
10
2020
pubmed:
2
10
2020
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The study investigated whether the use of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screw material (CF-PEEK) can reduce magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artifact formation. Two consecutive groups of patients were treated for degenerative spinal disorders of the lumbar spine with dorsal transpedicular spinal fusion. The first group (n = 27) received titanium pedicle screws. The second group (n = 20) received CF-PEEK screws. All patients underwent an MRI assessment within the first four postoperative weeks. For each operated segment, the surface of the artifact-free vertebral body area was calculated as percentage of the total vertebral body. For each implanted segment, the assessability of the spinal canal, the neuroforamina, and the pedicle screws, as well as the surrounding bony and soft-tissue structures was graded from 1 to 5. A mean artifact-free vertebral body area of 48.3 ± 5.0% was found in the in the titanium group and of 67.1 ± 5.6% in the CF-PEEK group (p ≤ 0.01). Assessability of the lumbar spine was significantly improved for CF-PEEK screws (p ≤ 0.01) for all measurements. CF-PEEK pedicle screws exhibit smaller artifact areas on vertebral body surfaces and their surrounding tissues, which improves the radiographic assessability. Hence, CF-PEEK may provide a diagnostic benefit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32999385
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73386-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-73386-5
pmc: PMC7527450
doi:
Substances chimiques
Benzophenones
0
Biocompatible Materials
0
Carbon Fiber
0
Ketones
0
Polymers
0
polyetheretherketone
31694-16-3
Polyethylene Glycols
3WJQ0SDW1A
Titanium
D1JT611TNE
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16094Références
Kaye, I. D., Prasad, S. K., Vaccaro, A. R. & Hilibrand, A. S. The cortical bone trajectory for pedicle screw insertion. JBJS Rev. 5, e13. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.Rvw.16.00120 (2017).
doi: 10.2106/jbjs.Rvw.16.00120
pubmed: 28857932
Rao, P. J., Pelletier, M. H., Walsh, W. R. & Mobbs, R. J. Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve osseointegration. Orthop. Surg. 6, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12098 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/os.12098
pubmed: 24890288
pmcid: 6583242
Gutierrez, L. B. et al. MR imaging near metallic implants using MAVRIC SL: initial clinical experience at 3T. Acad. Radiol. 22, 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.010 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.010
pubmed: 25435186
Krupa, K. & Bekiesińska-Figatowska, M. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Pol. J. Radiol. 80, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.12659/pjr.892628 (2015).
doi: 10.12659/pjr.892628
pubmed: 25745524
pmcid: 4340093
Budrys, T. et al. Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging: how it can really affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis?. J. Vibroeng. 20, 1202–1213 (2018).
Lu, W., Pauly, K. B., Gold, G. E., Pauly, J. M. & Hargreaves, B. A. SEMAC: slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 62, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.21967 (2009).
doi: 10.1002/mrm.21967
pubmed: 19267347
pmcid: 2837371
Hayter, C. L. et al. MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniques. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 197, W405-411. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.6659 (2011).
doi: 10.2214/ajr.11.6659
pubmed: 21862766
Kurtz, S. M. & Devine, J. N. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28, 4845–4869 (2007).
pubmed: 17686513
pmcid: 2040108
Ringel, F. et al. Radiolucent carbon fiber-reinforced pedicle screws for treatment of spinal tumors: advantages for radiation planning and follow-up imaging. World Neurosurg. 105, 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.091 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.091
pubmed: 28478252
Lindtner, R. A., Schmid, R., Nydegger, T., Konschake, M. & Schmoelz, W. Pedicle screw anchorage of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screws under cyclic loading. Eur. Spine J. 27, 1775–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5538-8 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5538-8
pubmed: 29497852
Egermann, M., Tanner, M. & Lehner, B. In Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (DKOU) (Berlin, 2012).