Xishan Li, Khaled H A Abdel-Latif, Jefrem Schwab, Xiang Zhou, Jie Yang, Zully M Ritter, Arndt F Schilling, Maximilian Reinhold
{"title":"Biomechanical impact of cortical bone vs. traditional pedicle screw trajectories: a finite element study on lumbar spinal instrumentation.","authors":"Xishan Li, Khaled H A Abdel-Latif, Jefrem Schwab, Xiang Zhou, Jie Yang, Zully M Ritter, Arndt F Schilling, Maximilian Reinhold","doi":"10.3389/fbioe.2025.1541114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pedicle screw fixation using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) enhances stability by engaging cortical bone, offering a valuable alternative to the traditional pedicle screw trajectory (TT). This study used finite element analysis to compare L4-5 instrumentation with CBT and TT screws, investigating whether the increased cortical bone engagement in CBT improves stability but makes it more susceptible to fatigue failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A L3-sacrum model was generated using anonymized CT patient data, validated against existing studies, showing consistent ROM (range of motion) values. A mono-segmental L4-5 instrumentation with an interbody fusion cage was configured with both TT and CBT models, differentiated for healthy and osteoporotic bone (reduced Young's modulus). Both models were exposed to simulated biomechanical loading conditions (compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation) to calculate screw loosening and breakage risk. Screw loosening was assessed by measuring micro-movements within the screw hole, while screw breakage was evaluated based on maximum stress values and their frequency at the same locations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both healthy and osteoporotic bone, the CBT model exhibited smaller micro-movements compared to the TT model across all motions. For maximum stress in healthy bone, CBT showed lower stress during right rotation but higher stress in the other six motions. In osteoporotic bone, CBT stress exceeded TT stress in all conditions. The TT model in healthy bone showed stress concentrations at three locations, while CBT distributed stress across five sites. In osteoporotic bone, CBT showed stress at three locations, while TT distributed stress at four. Notably, in the TT model, maximum stress occurred at the screw head in six of seven movements, whereas in the CBT model, three movements showed maximum stress at the screw head and three at the screw tail.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CBT screws, by traversing three cortical layers, achieve greater integration with the vertebral bone compared to TT screws, thus reducing the risk of screw loosening. Although this increases the maximum stress on the screws, the stress is more evenly distributed, with the screw tail helping to reduce the risk of breakage.</p>","PeriodicalId":12444,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","volume":"13 ","pages":"1541114"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11876142/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2025.1541114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Pedicle screw fixation using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) enhances stability by engaging cortical bone, offering a valuable alternative to the traditional pedicle screw trajectory (TT). This study used finite element analysis to compare L4-5 instrumentation with CBT and TT screws, investigating whether the increased cortical bone engagement in CBT improves stability but makes it more susceptible to fatigue failure.
Methods: A L3-sacrum model was generated using anonymized CT patient data, validated against existing studies, showing consistent ROM (range of motion) values. A mono-segmental L4-5 instrumentation with an interbody fusion cage was configured with both TT and CBT models, differentiated for healthy and osteoporotic bone (reduced Young's modulus). Both models were exposed to simulated biomechanical loading conditions (compression, flexion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation) to calculate screw loosening and breakage risk. Screw loosening was assessed by measuring micro-movements within the screw hole, while screw breakage was evaluated based on maximum stress values and their frequency at the same locations.
Results: In both healthy and osteoporotic bone, the CBT model exhibited smaller micro-movements compared to the TT model across all motions. For maximum stress in healthy bone, CBT showed lower stress during right rotation but higher stress in the other six motions. In osteoporotic bone, CBT stress exceeded TT stress in all conditions. The TT model in healthy bone showed stress concentrations at three locations, while CBT distributed stress across five sites. In osteoporotic bone, CBT showed stress at three locations, while TT distributed stress at four. Notably, in the TT model, maximum stress occurred at the screw head in six of seven movements, whereas in the CBT model, three movements showed maximum stress at the screw head and three at the screw tail.
Conclusion: CBT screws, by traversing three cortical layers, achieve greater integration with the vertebral bone compared to TT screws, thus reducing the risk of screw loosening. Although this increases the maximum stress on the screws, the stress is more evenly distributed, with the screw tail helping to reduce the risk of breakage.
期刊介绍:
The translation of new discoveries in medicine to clinical routine has never been easy. During the second half of the last century, thanks to the progress in chemistry, biochemistry and pharmacology, we have seen the development and the application of a large number of drugs and devices aimed at the treatment of symptoms, blocking unwanted pathways and, in the case of infectious diseases, fighting the micro-organisms responsible. However, we are facing, today, a dramatic change in the therapeutic approach to pathologies and diseases. Indeed, the challenge of the present and the next decade is to fully restore the physiological status of the diseased organism and to completely regenerate tissue and organs when they are so seriously affected that treatments cannot be limited to the repression of symptoms or to the repair of damage. This is being made possible thanks to the major developments made in basic cell and molecular biology, including stem cell science, growth factor delivery, gene isolation and transfection, the advances in bioengineering and nanotechnology, including development of new biomaterials, biofabrication technologies and use of bioreactors, and the big improvements in diagnostic tools and imaging of cells, tissues and organs.
In today`s world, an enhancement of communication between multidisciplinary experts, together with the promotion of joint projects and close collaborations among scientists, engineers, industry people, regulatory agencies and physicians are absolute requirements for the success of any attempt to develop and clinically apply a new biological therapy or an innovative device involving the collective use of biomaterials, cells and/or bioactive molecules. “Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology” aspires to be a forum for all people involved in the process by bridging the gap too often existing between a discovery in the basic sciences and its clinical application.