Bone Allograft Pedicle Screw Augmentation: A Biomechanical Study.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 May 2024
31 May 2024
Historique:
received:
22
06
2023
accepted:
07
03
2024
medline:
31
5
2024
pubmed:
31
5
2024
entrez:
31
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We performed a comprehensive cadaveric biomechanical study to compare the fixation strength of primary screws, screws augmented with bone allograft, and screws augmented with polymethylmethacrylate cement. To evaluate a novel technique for screw augmentation using morselized cortico-cancellous bone allograft to fill the widened screw track of failed pedicle screws. To date, there are no known biological methods available for failed pedicle screw augmentation or fixation. Biomechanical tests were performed using 2 different testing modalities to quantify fixation strength including axial screw pullout and progressive cyclic displacement tests. Fifty vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws. Our study showed that bone allograft augmentation using the same diameter screw was noninferior to the fixation strength of the initial screw. In the axial pullout test, screws undergoing bone allograft repair failed at 25% lower loads compared with native screws, and screws augmented with cement showed approximately twice as much strength compared with native screws. In the cyclic displacement test, screws fixed with cement resisted loosening the best of all the groups tested. However, screws augmented with bone graft were found to have an equal strength to native screw purchase. our study did not find a correlation with bone mineral density as a predictor for failure in axial pullout or cyclic displacement tests. Bone allograft augmentation for pedicle screw fixation was noninferior to the initial screw purchase in this biomechanical study. This bone allograft technique is a viable option for screw fixation in the revision setting when there is significant bone loss in the screw track.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive cadaveric biomechanical study to compare the fixation strength of primary screws, screws augmented with bone allograft, and screws augmented with polymethylmethacrylate cement.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate a novel technique for screw augmentation using morselized cortico-cancellous bone allograft to fill the widened screw track of failed pedicle screws.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To date, there are no known biological methods available for failed pedicle screw augmentation or fixation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Biomechanical tests were performed using 2 different testing modalities to quantify fixation strength including axial screw pullout and progressive cyclic displacement tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws. Our study showed that bone allograft augmentation using the same diameter screw was noninferior to the fixation strength of the initial screw. In the axial pullout test, screws undergoing bone allograft repair failed at 25% lower loads compared with native screws, and screws augmented with cement showed approximately twice as much strength compared with native screws. In the cyclic displacement test, screws fixed with cement resisted loosening the best of all the groups tested. However, screws augmented with bone graft were found to have an equal strength to native screw purchase. our study did not find a correlation with bone mineral density as a predictor for failure in axial pullout or cyclic displacement tests.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Bone allograft augmentation for pedicle screw fixation was noninferior to the initial screw purchase in this biomechanical study. This bone allograft technique is a viable option for screw fixation in the revision setting when there is significant bone loss in the screw track.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38820117
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001637
pii: 01933606-990000000-00320
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
El Saman A, Meier S, Sander A, et al. Reduced loosening rate and loss of correction following posterior stabilization with or without PMMA augmentation of pedicle screws in vertebral fractures in the elderly. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2013;39:455–460.
Ohlin A, Karlsson M, Duppe H, et al. Complications after transpedicular stabilization of the spine. A survivorship analysis of 163 cases. Spine. 1994;19:2774–2779.
Shikata J, Yamamuro T, Iida H, et al. Surgical treatment for paraplegia resulting from vertebral fractures in senile osteoporosis. Spine. 1990;15:485–489.
Kaneda K, Asano S, Hashimoto T, et al. The treatment of osteoporotic-posttraumatic vertebral collapse using the Kaneda device and bioactive ceramic vertebral prosthesis. Spine. 1992;17:S295–S303; 8.
Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R, et al. Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:1462–1469.
Cook SD, Salkeld SL, Whitecloud TR, et al. Biomechanical evaluation and preliminary clinical experience with an expansive pedicle screw design. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:230–236.
Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, et al. Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1519–1528.
Sawakami S, Yamakazi A, Ishikawa S, et al. Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of pedicle screws increases the initial fixation in osteoporotic spine patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:E28–E35.
Inceoglu S, Ferrara L, Mclain RF. Pedicle screw fixation strength: pullout versus insertional torque. Spine J. 2004;4:513–518.
Winter RB. Complications after transpedicular stabilization of the spine. Spine. 1994;19:2774–2779.
Kiner DW, Wybo CD, Sterba W, et al. Biomechanical analysis of different techniques in revision spinal instrumentation: larger diameter screws versus cement augmentation. Spine. 2008;33:2618–2622.
Liu D, Wu ZX, Pan XM, et al. Biomechanical comparison of different techniques in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: expansive pedicle screw versus polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:1227–1232.
Frankel BM, D’Agostino S, Wang C. A biomechanical cadaveric analysis of polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:47–53.
Chrea B, Malempati H, Campbell JR, et al. Enhancing pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine using allograft bone plug interference fixation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:E81–E87.
Chen YL, Chen WC, Chou CW, et al. Biomechanical study of expandable pedicle screw fixation in severe osteoporotic bone comparing with conventional and cement-augmented pedicle screws. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36:1416–1420.
Janssen I, Ryang YM, Gempt J, et al. Risk of cement leakage and pulmonary embolism by bone cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2017;17:837–844.
Zhuang XM, Yu BS, Zheng ZM, et al. Effect of the degree of osteoporosis on the biomechanical anchoring strength of the sacral pedicle screws: an in vitro comparison between unaugmented bicortical screws and polymethylmethacrylate augmented unicortical screws. Spine. 2010;35:E925–E931.
Jia C, Zhang R, Xing T, Gao H, et al. Biomechanical properties of pedicle screw fixation augmented with allograft bone particles in osteoporotic vertebrae: different sizes and amounts. Spine J. 2019;19:1443–1452.