Percutaneous Juxtapedicular Cement Salvage of Failed Spinal Instrumentation? Institutional Experience and Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.
Journal
Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 2332-4260
Titre abrégé: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635417
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Sep 2023
25 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
09
05
2023
accepted:
22
07
2023
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
25
9
2023
entrez:
25
9
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Instrumented spinal fusion constructs sometimes fail because of fatigue loading, frequently necessitating open revision surgery. Favorable outcomes after percutaneous juxtapedicular cement salvage (perc-cement salvage) of failing instrumentation have been described; however, this approach is not widely known among spine surgeons, and its biomechanical properties have not been evaluated. We report our institutional experience with perc-cement salvage and investigate the relative biomechanical strength of this technique as compared with 3 other common open revision techniques. A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent perc-cement salvage was conducted. Biomechanical characterization of revision techniques was performed in a cadaveric model of critical pedicle screw failure. Three revision cohorts involved removal and replacement of hardware: (1) screw upsizing, (2) vertebroplasty, and (3) fenestrated screw with cement augmentation. These were compared with a cohort with perc-cement salvage performed using a juxtapedicular trajectory with the failed primary screw remaining engaged in the vertebral body. Ten patients underwent perc-cement salvage from 2018 to 2022 to address screw haloing and/or endplate fracture threatening construct integrity. Pain palliation was reported by 8/10 patients. Open revision surgery was required in 4/10 patients, an average of 8.9 months after the salvage procedure (range 6.2-14.7 months). Only one revision was due to progressive hardware dislodgement. The remainder avoided open revision surgery through an average of 1.9 years of follow-up. In the cadaveric study, there were no significant differences in pedicle screw pullout strength among any of the revision cohorts. Perc-cement salvage of failing instrumentation is reasonably efficacious. The technique is biomechanically noninferior to other revision strategies that require open surgery for removal and replacement of hardware. Open revision surgery may be avoided by perc-cement salvage in select cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Instrumented spinal fusion constructs sometimes fail because of fatigue loading, frequently necessitating open revision surgery. Favorable outcomes after percutaneous juxtapedicular cement salvage (perc-cement salvage) of failing instrumentation have been described; however, this approach is not widely known among spine surgeons, and its biomechanical properties have not been evaluated. We report our institutional experience with perc-cement salvage and investigate the relative biomechanical strength of this technique as compared with 3 other common open revision techniques.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent perc-cement salvage was conducted. Biomechanical characterization of revision techniques was performed in a cadaveric model of critical pedicle screw failure. Three revision cohorts involved removal and replacement of hardware: (1) screw upsizing, (2) vertebroplasty, and (3) fenestrated screw with cement augmentation. These were compared with a cohort with perc-cement salvage performed using a juxtapedicular trajectory with the failed primary screw remaining engaged in the vertebral body.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ten patients underwent perc-cement salvage from 2018 to 2022 to address screw haloing and/or endplate fracture threatening construct integrity. Pain palliation was reported by 8/10 patients. Open revision surgery was required in 4/10 patients, an average of 8.9 months after the salvage procedure (range 6.2-14.7 months). Only one revision was due to progressive hardware dislodgement. The remainder avoided open revision surgery through an average of 1.9 years of follow-up. In the cadaveric study, there were no significant differences in pedicle screw pullout strength among any of the revision cohorts.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Perc-cement salvage of failing instrumentation is reasonably efficacious. The technique is biomechanically noninferior to other revision strategies that require open surgery for removal and replacement of hardware. Open revision surgery may be avoided by perc-cement salvage in select cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37747337
doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000000924
pii: 01787389-990000000-00884
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.
Références
Rivet DJ, Jeck D, Brennan J, Epstein A, Lauryssen C. Clinical outcomes and complications associated with pedicle screw fixation—augmented lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(3):261-266.
Burval DJ, McLain RF, Milks R, Inceoglu S. Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength. Spine. 2007;32(10):1077-1083.
DeWald CJ, Stanley T. Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality. Spine. 2006;31(19 suppl):S144-S151.
Law M, Tencer AF, Anderson PA. Caudo-cephalad loading of pedicle screws: mechanisms of loosening and methods of augmentation. Spine.1993;18(16):2438-2443.
Botolin S, Merritt C, Erickson M. Aseptic loosening of pedicle screw as a result of metal wear debris in a pediatric patient. Spine. 2013;38(1):E38-E42.
Hallab NJ, Cunningham BW, Jacobs JJ. Spinal implant debris-induced osteolysis. Spine. 2003;28(20):S125-S138.
Ames CP, Scheer JK, Lafage V, et al. Adult spinal deformity: epidemiology, health impact, evaluation, and management. Spine Deform. 2016;4(4):310-322.
Safaee MM, Ames CP, Smith JS. Epidemiology and socioeconomic trends in adult spinal deformity care. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(1):25-32.
Cheng JS, Forbes J, Wong C, Perry E. The epidemiology of adult spinal deformity and the aging population. Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surg. 2014:3-10.
Fu KMG, Wang MY, Virk MS, Dimar JR II, Mummaneni PV. Treatment of Spine Disease in the Elderly: Cutting Edge Techniques and Technologies. Springer Nature; 2023.
Gum JL, Carreon LY, Glassman SD. State-of-the-art: outcome assessment in adult spinal deformity. Spine Deform. 2021;9(1):1-11.
Sethi RK, Wright AK, Vitale MG. Value-Based Approaches to Spine Care: Sustainable Practices in an Era of Over-utilization. Springer Nature; 2019.
Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Shaffrey CI, et al. The costs and benefits of nonoperative management for adult scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35(5):578-582.
Kiner DW, Wybo CD, Sterba W, Yeni YN, Bartol SW, Vaidya R. Biomechanical analysis of different techniques in revision spinal instrumentation: larger diameter screws versus cement augmentation. Spine.2008;33(24):2618-2622.
Yoon SH, Lee SH, Jahng TA. An experimental study on the biomechanical effectiveness of bone cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation with various types of fenestrations. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2022;65(6):779-789.
Elder BD, Lo SFL, Holmes C, et al. The biomechanics of pedicle screw augmentation with cement. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1432-1445.
Leichtle CI, Lorenz A, Rothstock S, et al. Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(9):419-426.
Manon J, Hussain MM, Harris J, Moldavsky M, La Marca F, Bucklen BS. Biomechanical investigation of a novel revision device in an osteoporotic model: pullout strength of pedicle screw anchor versus larger screw diameter. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(6):265-271.
Frankel BM, D’Agostino S, Wang C. A biomechanical cadaveric analysis of polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):47-53.
Amoretti N, Bertrand AS, Gallo G, et al. Percutaneous consolidation of loosened spine arthrodesis under CT and fluoroscopy guidance by radiologists: a new useful technique. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(4):1135-1139.
Yun DJ, Hwang BW, Oh HS, Kim JS, Jeon SH, Lee SH. Salvage percutaneous vertebral augmentation using polymethyl methacrylate in patients with failed interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2016;95:618.e13-618.e20.
Clerk-Lamalice O, Irani Z, Growney M, Beall DP, Hirsch JA. Republished: parapedicular vertebral augmentation with polymethylmetacrylate for pedicle screw loosening. J Neurointerv Surg. 2019;11(9):e7.
Puri AS, Erdem E. Salvage percutaneous vertebral augmentation in failed spinal interbody fusions associated with multiple myeloma. Spine J. 2010;10(8):e5-e10.
Fu TS, Li YD. Fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous vertebroplasty for symptomatic loosened pedicle screw and instrumentation-associated vertebral fracture: an evaluation of initial experiences and technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(4):364-371.
Cianfoni A, Giamundo M, Pileggi M, et al. Spinal instrumentation rescue with cement augmentation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(10):1957-1962.
Agha RA, Sohrabi C, Mathew G, et al. The PROCESS 2020 guideline: updating consensus preferred reporting of CasE series in surgery (PROCESS) guidelines. Int J Surg. 2020;84:231-235.
Tan JS, Kayanja MM, St Clair SF. The difference in spine specimen dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone mineral density between in situ and in vitro scans. Spine J. 2010;10(9):784-788.
Junaid M, Afzal A, Kalsoom A, Bukhari SS. Freehand pedicle screw fixation: a safe recipe for dorsal, lumbar and sacral spine. Pakistan J Med Sci. 2019;35(3):680-684.
McKinney W. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. Proceedings of the Python in Science Conference; 2010.
The Pandas Development Team. Pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas. Zenodo; 2023.
Pollard TJ, Johnson AEW, Raffa JD, Mark RG. An open source Python package for producing summary statistics for research papers. JAMIA Open. 2018;1(1):26-31.
Waskom ML. seaborn: statistical data visualization. J Open Source Softw. 2021;6(60):3021.
Hunter JD. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9(3):90-95.
Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020;17(3):261-272.
Banat M, Wach J, Salemdawod A, Bara G, Scorzin J, Vatter H. Indications for early revision surgery for material failure in spinal instrumentation: experience at a level 1 center for spinal surgery—a single-center study. Medicine. 2021;100(51):e28410.
Montenegro TS, Gonzalez GA, Saiegh FA, et al. Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(4):437-445.
Lambrechts MJ, Toci GR, Siegel N, et al. Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions. Spine J. 2023;23(1):105-115.
Glassman SD, Alegre GM. Adult spinal deformity in the osteoporotic spine: options and pitfalls. Instr Course Lect. 2003;52:579-588.
Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW. Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(3):309-312.
Wittenberg RH, Lee KS, Shea M, White AA III, Hayes WC. Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;296:278-287.
Turner AWL, Gillies RM, Svehla MJ, Saito M, Walsh WR. Hydroxyapatite composite resin cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:253-261.
Bullmann V, Schmoelz W, Richter M, Grathwohl C, Schulte TL. Revision of cannulated and perforated cement-augmented pedicle screws: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Spine. 2010;35(19):E932-E939.
Mehmanparast H, Petit Y, Mac-Thiong JM. Comparison of pedicle screw loosening mechanisms and the effect on fixation strength. J Biomech Eng. 2015;137(12):121003.
Aycan MF, Yaman ME, Usta Y, Demir T, Tolunay T. Investigation of toggling effect on pullout performance of pedicle screws. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018;232(4):395-402.