骨异体椎弓根螺钉增强:生物力学研究

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Clinical Spine Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001637
Bould Lauren, Kooner Paul, Beckman Lorne, Maroun Rizkallah, Thomas Steffen, Jan van Loon, Ahmed Aoude, Jean Ouellet, Robert-Jan Kroeze, Maarten Spruit
{"title":"骨异体椎弓根螺钉增强:生物力学研究","authors":"Bould Lauren, Kooner Paul, Beckman Lorne, Maroun Rizkallah, Thomas Steffen, Jan van Loon, Ahmed Aoude, Jean Ouellet, Robert-Jan Kroeze, Maarten Spruit","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate a novel technique for screw augmentation using morselized cortico-cancellous bone allograft to fill the widened screw track of failed pedicle screws.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, there are no known biological methods available for failed pedicle screw augmentation or fixation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Biomechanical tests were performed using 2 different testing modalities to quantify fixation strength including axial screw pullout and progressive cyclic displacement tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"E472-E479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bone Allograft Pedicle Screw Augmentation: A Biomechanical Study.\",\"authors\":\"Bould Lauren, Kooner Paul, Beckman Lorne, Maroun Rizkallah, Thomas Steffen, Jan van Loon, Ahmed Aoude, Jean Ouellet, Robert-Jan Kroeze, Maarten Spruit\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate a novel technique for screw augmentation using morselized cortico-cancellous bone allograft to fill the widened screw track of failed pedicle screws.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, there are no known biological methods available for failed pedicle screw augmentation or fixation.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Biomechanical tests were performed using 2 different testing modalities to quantify fixation strength including axial screw pullout and progressive cyclic displacement tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"E472-E479\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001637\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:我们进行了一项全面的尸体生物力学研究,比较了主螺钉、用同种异体骨增强的螺钉和用聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯骨水泥增强的螺钉的固定强度:目的:评估一种新的螺钉增强技术,该技术使用切碎的皮质钙化骨同种异体材料填充失败椎弓根螺钉增宽的螺钉轨道:背景:迄今为止,还没有已知的生物方法可用于失败的椎弓根螺钉增强或固定:采用两种不同的测试模式进行生物力学测试,以量化固定强度,包括轴向螺钉拉出和渐进循环位移测试:对 50 个椎体进行了椎弓根螺钉固定。我们的研究表明,使用相同直径的螺钉进行同种异体骨增量与初始螺钉的固定强度相比毫不逊色。在轴向拉出试验中,与原生螺钉相比,接受同种异体骨修复的螺钉在负荷降低 25% 的情况下失效,与原生螺钉相比,使用骨水泥增强的螺钉显示出约两倍的强度。在循环位移测试中,用骨水泥固定的螺钉在所有测试组中抗松动能力最强。我们的研究没有发现骨矿物质密度与轴向拉力或循环位移测试中的失败预测因素相关:结论:在这项生物力学研究中,椎弓根螺钉固定的骨异体移植增量效果并不优于初始螺钉植入。当螺钉轨道骨质大量流失时,这种骨异体移植技术是翻修时螺钉固定的可行选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bone Allograft Pedicle Screw Augmentation: A Biomechanical Study.

Study design: 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: 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: To date, there are no known biological methods available for failed pedicle screw augmentation or fixation.

Materials and methods: Biomechanical tests were performed using 2 different testing modalities to quantify fixation strength including axial screw pullout and progressive cyclic displacement tests.

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: 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
期刊介绍: Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure. Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信