Is It Safe to Back Out Pedicle Screws After Augmentation With Polymethyl Methacrylate or Calcium Phosphate Cement? A Biomechanical Study

被引:13
作者
Cho, Woojin [1 ]
Wu, Chunhui [1 ]
Zheng, Xiujun [1 ]
Erkan, Serkan [1 ]
Suratwala, Sanjeev J. [1 ]
Mehbod, Amir A. [1 ]
Transfeldt, Ensor E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Fdn Adv Spine Knowledge, Twin Cities Spine Ctr, Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA
来源
JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES | 2011年 / 24卷 / 04期
关键词
pedicle screw; cement augmentation; osteoporosis; revision; polymethyl methacrylate; calcium phosphate cement; maximum insertional torque; maximum removal torque; FIXATION STRENGTH; APATITE CEMENT; LUMBAR SPINE; BONE;
D O I
10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f605d0
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
100204 [神经病学];
摘要
Study Design: Biomechanical cadaveric study. Objective: To determine the torque required to remove pedicle screws augmented with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) or calcium phosphate cement (CPC); thus, proving the safety of back out of augmented screws in the osteopotoric model, which would be a more dangerous setting than the nonosteoporotic model. Summary of Background Data: To our knowledge, no earlier study has characterized the safety of backing out pedicle screw augmented with PMMA or CPC. Methods: Pedicle screws were inserted in 24 osteoporotic vertebrae (48 pedicles). The maximal insertion torque and pullout strength of each screw were recorded. After pullout of the pedicle screws, the vertebrae were then randomized into 2 groups of 12 (24 pedicles) each. PMMA was injected into the pedicles in the first group and CPC was injected into the second group after which the pedicle screws were inserted. The pedicle screws were inserted into the pedicle holes augmented with PMMA or CPC, respectively. Finally, all augmented screws were backed out and the maximal removal torque was recorded using a digital torque wrench. Results: Throughout the study, no incidence of pedicle or lamina fractures was observed. The average insertion torque was 0.5 +/- 0.27 and 0.45 +/- 0.29 N.m for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.724). The average pullout strength was 723.1 +/- 391.7 and 671.2 +/- 383.0N (P = 0.950). After cement augmentation, the average removal torque was 0.77 +/- 0.31 and 0.81 +/- 0.26 N.m for PMMA and CPC, respectively (P = 0.494). Conclusions: The results of this study showed that pedicle screws can be easily and safely backed out after augmentation with PMMA or CPC. The result of CPC, however, may only be valid before any bony ingrowth.
引用
收藏
页码:276 / 279
页数:4
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]
Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae - Biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength [J].
Burval, Daniel J. ;
McLain, Robert F. ;
Milks, Ryan ;
Inceoglu, Serkan .
SPINE, 2007, 32 (10) :1077-1083
[2]
CHO W, 2010, J SPINAL DI IN PRESS
[3]
Biomechanical comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone [J].
Derincek, A ;
Wu, C ;
Mehbod, A ;
Transfeldt, EE .
JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2006, 19 (04) :286-291
[4]
Ignatius A, 2001, J BIOMED MATER RES, V58, P254, DOI 10.1002/1097-4636(2001)58:3<254::AID-JBM1014>3.3.CO
[5]
2-1
[6]
Carbonated apatite cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine [J].
Lotz, JC ;
Hu, SS ;
Chiu, DFM ;
Yu, M ;
Colliou, O ;
Poser, RD .
SPINE, 1997, 22 (23) :2716-2723
[7]
Restoration of pedicle screw fixation with an in situ setting calcium phosphate cement [J].
Moore, DC ;
Maitra, RS ;
Farjo, LA ;
Graziano, GP ;
Goldstein, SA .
SPINE, 1997, 22 (15) :1696-1705
[8]
REPAIR OF FAILED TRANSPEDICLE SCREW FIXATION - A BIOMECHANICAL STUDY COMPARING POLYMETHYLMETHACRYLATE, MILLED BONE, AND MATCHSTICK BONE RECONSTRUCTION [J].
PFEIFER, BA ;
KRAG, MH ;
JOHNSON, C .
SPINE, 1994, 19 (03) :350-353
[9]
Augmentation of pedicle screw fixation strength using an injectable calcium phosphate cement as a function of injection timing and method [J].
Renner, SM ;
Lim, TH ;
Kim, WJ ;
Katolik, L ;
An, HS ;
Andersson, GBJ .
SPINE, 2004, 29 (11) :E212-E216
[10]
Rohmiller Michael T, 2002, Spine J, V2, P255, DOI 10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00207-3