Jan Wulf, Nele Baur, Manuel Kistler, Kenny Hagar, Hannes Traxler, Carl Neuerburg, Wolfgang Böcker, Boris M Holzapfel, Adrian Cavalcanti Kußmaul
{"title":"S2AI翻修手术-增加螺钉直径的生物力学评价。","authors":"Jan Wulf, Nele Baur, Manuel Kistler, Kenny Hagar, Hannes Traxler, Carl Neuerburg, Wolfgang Böcker, Boris M Holzapfel, Adrian Cavalcanti Kußmaul","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-09469-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This cadaveric study investigated whether, during revision surgery for S2 ala ilium (S2AI) screws, the choice of 11.5 mm diameter screws is superior to 10.5 mm screws in terms of biomechanical stability. The secondary goal was to determine whether increasing the diameter of the revision screws provided adequate stability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>9.5 mm diameter S2AI screws were subjected to cyclic mechanical vertical loading until failure (loosening > 5 mm) occurred. A revision using a 10.5- or 11.5-mm diameter screw was performed, and the described vertical loading was applied again. The force in Newtons (N) until failure was assessed and subjected to matched-pair analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10.5 mm screws demonstrated greater stability (mean + 41.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0205). 11.5 mm screws also demonstrated greater stability (mean + 53.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0242). Comparison of both 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm revision screw options showed no significant difference in absolute increase of stability (p = 0.6004). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the relative increase in stability, measured as fold change (p = 0.4052).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Revision surgery with both screws demonstrated noteworthy enhancement in stability. However, the choice between 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm screws for optimal revision stability appears inconsequential. This suggests that factors beyond the screw diameter may play a crucial role in the stability of revision screws.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"S2AI revision surgery - biomechanical evaluation of increased screw diameters.\",\"authors\":\"Jan Wulf, Nele Baur, Manuel Kistler, Kenny Hagar, Hannes Traxler, Carl Neuerburg, Wolfgang Böcker, Boris M Holzapfel, Adrian Cavalcanti Kußmaul\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-025-09469-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This cadaveric study investigated whether, during revision surgery for S2 ala ilium (S2AI) screws, the choice of 11.5 mm diameter screws is superior to 10.5 mm screws in terms of biomechanical stability. The secondary goal was to determine whether increasing the diameter of the revision screws provided adequate stability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>9.5 mm diameter S2AI screws were subjected to cyclic mechanical vertical loading until failure (loosening > 5 mm) occurred. A revision using a 10.5- or 11.5-mm diameter screw was performed, and the described vertical loading was applied again. The force in Newtons (N) until failure was assessed and subjected to matched-pair analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10.5 mm screws demonstrated greater stability (mean + 41.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0205). 11.5 mm screws also demonstrated greater stability (mean + 53.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0242). Comparison of both 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm revision screw options showed no significant difference in absolute increase of stability (p = 0.6004). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the relative increase in stability, measured as fold change (p = 0.4052).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Revision surgery with both screws demonstrated noteworthy enhancement in stability. However, the choice between 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm screws for optimal revision stability appears inconsequential. This suggests that factors beyond the screw diameter may play a crucial role in the stability of revision screws.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09469-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09469-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
S2AI revision surgery - biomechanical evaluation of increased screw diameters.
Purpose: This cadaveric study investigated whether, during revision surgery for S2 ala ilium (S2AI) screws, the choice of 11.5 mm diameter screws is superior to 10.5 mm screws in terms of biomechanical stability. The secondary goal was to determine whether increasing the diameter of the revision screws provided adequate stability.
Methods: 9.5 mm diameter S2AI screws were subjected to cyclic mechanical vertical loading until failure (loosening > 5 mm) occurred. A revision using a 10.5- or 11.5-mm diameter screw was performed, and the described vertical loading was applied again. The force in Newtons (N) until failure was assessed and subjected to matched-pair analysis.
Results: 10.5 mm screws demonstrated greater stability (mean + 41.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0205). 11.5 mm screws also demonstrated greater stability (mean + 53.9 N) compared to the 9.5 mm screws (p = 0.0242). Comparison of both 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm revision screw options showed no significant difference in absolute increase of stability (p = 0.6004). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the relative increase in stability, measured as fold change (p = 0.4052).
Conclusion: Revision surgery with both screws demonstrated noteworthy enhancement in stability. However, the choice between 10.5 mm and 11.5 mm screws for optimal revision stability appears inconsequential. This suggests that factors beyond the screw diameter may play a crucial role in the stability of revision screws.
期刊介绍：
"European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts.
Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
