Tricortical screw spinal fixation: a scoping review and introduction of technique, biomechanical advantages, and clinical outcomes in high-risk vertebral fractures.
Hanyu Qiu, Daniel O'Connor, Kishore Balasubramanian, Graham G Mulvaney, Beste Gulsuna, Abigail A York, Chao Li DO
{"title":"Tricortical screw spinal fixation: a scoping review and introduction of technique, biomechanical advantages, and clinical outcomes in high-risk vertebral fractures.","authors":"Hanyu Qiu, Daniel O'Connor, Kishore Balasubramanian, Graham G Mulvaney, Beste Gulsuna, Abigail A York, Chao Li DO","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03808-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objective: </strong>Tricortical pedicle screw (TCPS) fixation has emerged as a biomechanically superior alternative to conventional unicortical/bicortical methods for spinal stabilization in high-risk populations, particularly elderly patients with osteoporotic or diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH)-related vertebral fractures. This review evaluates TCPS fixation's biomechanical advantages, clinical outcomes, and surgical considerations to address these challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA scoping review checklist. PubMed was searched through March 1, 2025. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting treatment parameters and follow-up results of TCPS spinal fixation. Data was analyzed to synthesize clinical outcomes, with a focus on hardware failure rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>5 studies satisfied the final inclusion criteria, consisting of 3 case series and 2 cohorts. These 5 studies included 85 patient cases. The included patients had a weighted mean age of 78.97 years, with a sex distribution consisting of 54.8% (n = 40) males and 45.2% (n = 33) females. 62.4% (n = 53) patients were positive for DISH. Affected vertebrae were mostly located in the thoracolumbar region (64.1%), followed by the thoracic (21.8%) and lumbar regions (14.1%). 76.5% (n = 65) of patients were treated with TCPS fixation, and 23.5% (n = 20) were treated conventionally. A total of 636 screws were inserted, consisting of 46.2% (n = 294) tricortical and 53.8% (n = 342) conventional pedicle screws. Of the tricortical screws, 1.36% (n = 4) loosened, while 20.5% (n = 70) of conventional screws loosened. 3 patients treated with TCPS fixation experienced implant failure, while 6 patients treated with conventional pedicle screw fixation experienced implant failure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TCPS fixation enhances spinal stabilization in high-risk fractures through tri-cortical load distribution, minimizing screw loosening and invasiveness. While requiring precise trajectory planning to avoid perforation risks, it offers shorter operative times, reduced blood loss, and improved biomechanical stability, particularly in osteoporotic/DISH patients. Further prospective studies are needed to optimize patient selection and refine navigation-assisted techniques for broader applicability.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"649"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12446397/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03808-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/objective: Tricortical pedicle screw (TCPS) fixation has emerged as a biomechanically superior alternative to conventional unicortical/bicortical methods for spinal stabilization in high-risk populations, particularly elderly patients with osteoporotic or diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH)-related vertebral fractures. This review evaluates TCPS fixation's biomechanical advantages, clinical outcomes, and surgical considerations to address these challenges.
Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the PRISMA scoping review checklist. PubMed was searched through March 1, 2025. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting treatment parameters and follow-up results of TCPS spinal fixation. Data was analyzed to synthesize clinical outcomes, with a focus on hardware failure rates.
Results: 5 studies satisfied the final inclusion criteria, consisting of 3 case series and 2 cohorts. These 5 studies included 85 patient cases. The included patients had a weighted mean age of 78.97 years, with a sex distribution consisting of 54.8% (n = 40) males and 45.2% (n = 33) females. 62.4% (n = 53) patients were positive for DISH. Affected vertebrae were mostly located in the thoracolumbar region (64.1%), followed by the thoracic (21.8%) and lumbar regions (14.1%). 76.5% (n = 65) of patients were treated with TCPS fixation, and 23.5% (n = 20) were treated conventionally. A total of 636 screws were inserted, consisting of 46.2% (n = 294) tricortical and 53.8% (n = 342) conventional pedicle screws. Of the tricortical screws, 1.36% (n = 4) loosened, while 20.5% (n = 70) of conventional screws loosened. 3 patients treated with TCPS fixation experienced implant failure, while 6 patients treated with conventional pedicle screw fixation experienced implant failure.
Conclusion: TCPS fixation enhances spinal stabilization in high-risk fractures through tri-cortical load distribution, minimizing screw loosening and invasiveness. While requiring precise trajectory planning to avoid perforation risks, it offers shorter operative times, reduced blood loss, and improved biomechanical stability, particularly in osteoporotic/DISH patients. Further prospective studies are needed to optimize patient selection and refine navigation-assisted techniques for broader applicability.
期刊介绍:
The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.