Abstract
Purpose
For posterior spinal stabilization, loosening of pedicle screws at the bone-screw interface is a clinical complication, especially in the osteoporotic population. Axial pullout testing is the standard pre-clinical testing method for new screw designs although it has questioned clinical relevance. The aim of this study was to determine the fixation strength of three current osteoporotic fixation techniques and to investigate whether or not pullout testing results can directly relate to those of the more physiologic fatigue testing.
Methods
Thirty-nine osteoporotic, human lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws according to four treatment groups: (1) screw only (control), (2) prefilled augmentation, (3) screw injected augmentation, and (4) unaugmented screws with an increased diameter. Toggle testing was first performed on one pedicle, using a cranial-caudal sinusoidal, cyclic (1.0 Hz) fatigue loading applied at the screw head. The initial compressive forces ranged from 25 to 75 N. Peak force increased stepwise by 25 N every 250 cycles until a 5.4-mm screw head displacement. The contralateral screw then underwent pure axial pullout (5 mm/min).
Results
When compared to the control group, screw injected augmentation increased fatigue force (27 %, p = 0.045) while prefilled augmentation reduced fatigue force (−7 %, p = 0.73). Both augmentation techniques increased pullout force compared to the control (ps < 0.04). Increasing the screw diameter by 1 mm increased pullout force (24 %, p = 0.19), fatigue force (5 %, p = 0.73), and induced the least stiffness loss (−29 %) from control.
Conclusions
For the osteoporotic spine, screw injected augmentation showed the best biomechanical stability. Although pullout testing was more sensitive, the differences observed were not reflected in the more physiological fatigue testing, thus casting further doubt on the clinical relevance of pullout testing.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gaines RW (2000) The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A:1458–1476
Cho W, Cho SK, Wu C (2010) The biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1061–1065. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.24237
Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Winter RB (1999) Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1519–1528
Yahiro MA (1994) Comprehensive literature review. Pedicle screw fixation devices. Spine 19:2274S–2278S
Yuan HA, Garfin SR, Dickman CA, Mardjetko SM (1994) A historical cohort study of pedicle screw fixation in thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spinal fusion. Spine 19:2279S–2296S
Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, Whitecloud TS III, Cook SD (1994) Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine 19:2415–2420
Soshi S, Shiba R, Kondo H, Murota K (1991) An experimental study on transpedicular screw fixation in relation to osteoporosis of the lumbar spine. Spine 16:1335–1341
Goost H, Kabir K, Wirtz DC, Deborre C, Karius T, Pflugmacher R, Koch EMW, Burger C, Fölsch C (2012) PMMA augmentation of pedicle screws: results of a survey in Germany. Z Orthop Unfall 150:318–323. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1298371
Choma TJ, Pfeiffer FM, Swope RW, Hirner JP (2012) Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine 37:E1628–E1632
Kiner DW, Wybo CD, Sterba W, Yeni YN, Bartol SW, Vaidya R (2008) Biomechanical analysis of different techniques in revision spinal instrumentation: larger diameter screws versus cement augmentation. Spine 33:2618
Dawson JM, Boschert P, Macenski M, Rand N (2003) Clinical relevance of pull-out strength testing of pedicle screws. ASTM Spec Tech Publ 1431:68–80
ASTM (2013) F543 standard specification and test methods for metallic medical bone screws. doi:10.1520/F0543
Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation a selected survey of ABS members. Spine 18:2231
Lee TC (1995) Complications of transpedicular reduction and stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine. J Formos Med Assoc 94:738–741
Ohlin A, Karlsson M, Düppe H, Hasserius R, Redlund-Johnell I (1994) Complications after transpedicular stabilization of the spine: a survivorship analysis of 163 cases. Spine 19:2774–2779
Choma TJ, Frevert WF, Carson WL, Waters NP, Pfeiffer FM (2011) Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screws in osteoporotic bone with bioactive cement augmentation using simulated in vivo multicomponent loading. Spine 36:454–462. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d449ec
Burval DJ, McLain RF, Milks R, Inceoglu S (2007) Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength. Spine 32:1077–1083
Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R, Kropik K, Aigner N, Ogon M, Redl H (2008) Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J 17:1462–1469. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0769-8
Wittenberg RH, Lee KS, Shea M, White AA, Hayes WC (1993) Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. Clin Orthop Relat Res 296:278–287
Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH, Thomas JC, Holland WR, Field BT, Spencer CW (1986) A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:99–112
Bullmann V, Schmoelz W, Richter M, Grathwohl C, Schulte TL (2010) Revision of cannulated and perforated cement-augmented pedicle screws: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Spine 35:E932–E939
Seebeck J, Lill C, Morlock M, Schneider E (1999) Implantatverankerung in osteoporotischem Knochen mittels monokortikaler Schrauben. Trauma Berufskrankheit 1:411–414
Stadelmann VA, Bretton E, Terrier A, Procter P, Pioletti DP (2010) Calcium phosphate cement augmentation of cancellous bone screws can compensate for the absence of cortical fixation. J Biomech 43:2869–2874. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.07.025
Bergmann G, Berlin C-U (2008) OrthoLoad. Charite-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, http://www.OrthoLoad.com
Rohlmann A, Bergmann G, Graichen F (1997) Loads on an internal spinal fixation device during walking. J Biomech 30:41–47
Acknowledgments
EU funding from the Marie Curie Action- SpineFX (238690), the State of Hamburg, screws from Ulrich medical® and cement from TECRES medical® are kindly acknowledged. A special thank you to Kay Sellenschloh and Matthias Vollmer who helped make the study run and to Nick Bishop, Milan Niebuhr and Lea Voigt for their invaluable contributions.
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kueny, R.A., Kolb, J.P., Lehmann, W. et al. Influence of the screw augmentation technique and a diameter increase on pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine: pullout versus fatigue testing. Eur Spine J 23, 2196–2202 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3476-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3476-7