Comparison of Three Different Screw Trajectories in Osteoporotic Vertebrae: A Biomechanical Investigation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-78150/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Comparison of Three Different Screw Trajectories in Osteoporotic Vertebrae: A Biomechanical Investigation

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-78150/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 05 May, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Pedicle screw insertion in osteoporotic patients is challenging. Achieving more screw-cortical bone purchase and invasiveness minimization, the cortical bone trajectory and the midline cortical techniques represent alternatives to traditional pedicle screws. This study compares the fatigue behavior and fixation strength of the cement-augmented traditional trajectory (TT), the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) and the midline cortical (MC).

Methods: Ten human cadaveric spine specimens (L1 - L5) were examined. The average age was 86.3 ± 7.2 years. CT scans were provided for preoperative planning. CBT and MC were implanted by using the patient-specific 3D-printed placement guide (MySpine^®, Medacta International), TT were implanted freehand. All 10 cadaveric specimens were randomized to group A (CBT vs. MC) or group B (MC vs. TT). Each screw was loaded for 10,000 cycles. The failure criterion was doubling of the initial screw displacement resulting from the compressive force (60 N) at the first cycle, the stop criterion as a doubling of the initial screw displacement. After dynamic testing, screws were pulled out axially at 5 mm/min to determine their remaining fixation strength.

Results: The mean pull-out forces did not differ significantly. Concerning the fatigue performance, only one out of ten MC of group A failed prematurely due to loosening after 1,500 cycles (L3). Five CBT already loosened during the first 500 cycles. The mean displacement was always lower in the MC. In group B, all TT showed no signs of failure or loosening. Three MC failed already after 26 cycles, 1,510 cycles, and 2,144 cycles, respectively. The TT showed always a lower mean displacement. In the subsequent pull-out tests, the remaining mean fixation strength of the MC (449.6 ± 298.9 N) was slightly higher compared to the mean pull-out force of the CBT (401.2 ± 261.4 N). However, MC (714.5 ± 488.0 N) were inferior to TT (990.2 ± 451.9 N).

Conclusion: The current study demonstrated that cement-augmented TT have best fatigue and pull-out characteristics in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae, followed by the MC and CBT. MC represent a promising alternative in osteoporotic bone if cement augmentation should be avoided. Using the patient-specific guide contributes to improve screws’ biomechanical properties.

Orthopedics

CBT

biomechanical analysis

cement-augmented screws

osteoporosis

patient-specific placement guide

Lumbar spine instrumentation using pedicle screws has emerged as the most common surgical technique in traumatic and degenerative surgery. Especially in the case of treating medical indications caused by osteoporosis, cement-augmented cannulated pedicle screws are widely used by now [13, 23, 32]. As bone cement, e.g. polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), is associated with inherent disadvantages [17, 25, 38], auspicious alternatives are needed to achieve sufficient stability. To overcome this issue by enhancing pedicle screw fixation in bone of compromised quality, different screw designs and insertion techniques regarding screw trajectory modifications were developed [36, 40]. In 2009, Santoni et al. [35] introduced the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) fixation approach. This trajectory starts medially at the pars interarticularis and follows a craniolaterally direct path through the pedicle [26]. By contrast, the medially directed traditional trajectory (TT) has a lateral starting point and uses a transpedicular path through the anatomic axis of the pedicle [29]. Accordingly, TT pedicle screws achieve their stability apart from the pedicle mainly in cancellous bone, where without cement a loss of stability can be seen in osteoporotic patients, while CBT screws are characterized by increased screw thread contact with cortical bone [26]. A further alternative represents the midline cortical (MC) approach, which is derrived from the CBT technique. Its entry points are sufficiently distant from the adjacent facet joints. The trajectory follows the path from the pars interarticularis to the inferior edge of the pedicle [29]. Due to passing denser bone, the insertion of longer screws, which are directed towards the middle of the vertebral endplate, is possible. Although CBT techniques allow invasiveness reduction and shows comparable or superior biomechanical features compared to the TT approach [6, 14, 18], there is little consensus on the selection of the optimal screw size and the corresponding screw path [30]. While the original CBT method grants a screw length usually no longer than 25–30 mm, the MC approach allows the use of longer screws with a minimum length of 40 mm. However, previous literature does not adequately address the effects of the different insertion techniques on the screw’s biomechanical performance. For that reason, this study aimed at comparing the fatigue behavior and fixation strength of pedicle screws using the cement-augmented TT, the CBT and the MC fixation approach, respectively. Therefore, a biomechanical analysis was performed in order to evaluate whether CBT screws or MC screws represent a possible alternative to cement-augmented TT screws. As screw misplacement is biomechanically disadvantageous, CBT screws and MC screws were inserted using a patient-specific 3D-printed pedicle screw placement guide (MySpine®, Medacta International SA, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) [9, 15, 22]. By contrast, the TT screws were inserted freehand as usual.

Specimens and grouping

Ten adult human cadaveric spine specimens, especially L1 to L5, without destructive pathologies (fractures, tumor) were obtained in fresh and anatomically unfixed condition. All donors originated from the Institute of Anatomy of the University of Leipzig and had given written consent to dedicate their bodies to medical education and research purposes. Being part of the body donor program regulated by the Saxonian Death and Funeral Act of 1994 (3rd section, paragraph 18, item 8), institutional approval for the use of the post-mortem tissues of human body donors was obtained. The authors declare that all experiments were performed according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

During dissection, all vertebrae were separated into single levels. Muscular and soft tissue was removed from each vertebra while preserving its anatomy. The specimens were stored at -83 °C until testing. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using Hologic Delphi A QDR-Series (Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA). In addition, a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan (PHILIPS Brilliance iCT 256, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, USA) of all specimens was taken for the exclusion of bone defects and for preoperative planning.

All cadaveric spine specimens (n = 10) were randomized to two different groups, each consisting of 20 lumbar vertebrae (L1 - L4) from five body donors. While group A analysed CBT screws vs. MC screws, group B tested MC screws vs. cement-augmented TT screws. Additionally, both groups were divided into the same two subgroups concerning the test procedure (dynamic test, static test). As L2 and L4 were tested dynamically, L1 and L3 were analysed under static testing conditions. Moreover, in group B four more L5 were tested additionally.

Preoperative planning

Low-dose CT scans of all cadaveric specimens were taken. While the TT screw design was determined by an experienced surgeon by using these scans, the planning of the CBT screws and MC screws was more extensive. First, a CT scan-based 3D model of every single vertebra was reconstructed by using medical image processing software Mimics® (Materialise NV, Leuven, Belgium). A 3D preoperative plan regarding the optimal screw design (screw length, screw diameter) and screw trajectory (sagittal, transverse, and coronal plane) was realized using SolidWorks® 3D CAD software (Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France) (Fig. 1). Subsequently, the MySpine® patient-matched targeting guide was generated based on these data. Relevant competencies, know-how, and equipment originated from Medacta International SA (Castel San Pietro, Switzerland).

Test preparation

Before biomechanical testing, the lumbar vertebra was thawed to room temperature for 24 h and embedded in an aluminum cylinder by using RenCast® FC52/53 Isocyanate mixed in a ratio of 1:1:3 with RenCast® FC52 Polyol and Filler DT 082 (Huntsman Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). After finalizing preparations, all vertebrae were instrumented by the same experienced surgeon. For screw implantation, the patient-specific placement guide (MySpine®, Fig. 2) was used to guide the drilling of the CBT and MC trajectory (Fig. 3), respectively. While pushing the navigation tool firmly to the lamina, initial screw holes were made (Fig. 2). After a K-wire was inserted in the canal, the MySpine® guide was removed. Prior to the subsequent screw insertion, an appropriate cannulated tap was used, which was guided by the K-wire. However, TT screw implantation was based on the freehand technique whereby its trajectory was oriented towards the anatomic axis of the pedicle (Fig. 3). In addition, the TT screws were augmented by using 1.25 mL PMMA-based bone cement after screw insertion. To prevent possible impacts of cementation leakage on the non-cemented screw of the contralateral side, TT screw augmentation was first performed after the CBT or MC screw was tested.

Biomechanical testing

Static test

After implantation, the appropriate subgroup was tested. Therefore, the embedded specimen was mounted and oriented properly in the customized pull-out test setup (Fig. 4). As the inserted screw was aligned with the loading axis of the servo-pneumatic uniaxial testing machine DYNA-MESS (DYNA-MESS Prüfmaschinen GmbH, Aachen, Germany), the setup could ensure the longitudinal extraction of the implant. The pull-out test was performed by using a testing speed of 5 mm/min following ASTM F543-17 [3]. During the test, force and displacement were recorded by the testing machine. The test procedure was stopped when the screw was released from its vertebra, which was indicated by a 50% decrease in peak force. Group A was tested randomly. By contrast, MC screws of group B were always tested first to avoid adverse effects on the screw’s fixation strength caused by TT screw augmentation.

Dynamic test

The dynamic testing procedure, especially the experimental setup, was based on ASTM F1717-18 [4]. The test setup used (Fig. 5) enabled standardized test conditions for each vertebra despite its anatomical conditions. However, in contrast to ASTM F1717-18 [4], only one screw-rod system was evaluated. Moreover, the cranial vertebra was replaced by a customized lever arm which was directly attached to a longitudinal rod. As in the pull-out tests, group A was tested in a random order, while the MC screws were always tested first in group B. The screws underwent cyclical loading at a rate of 1 Hz for 10,000 cycles using the servo-pneumatic uniaxial testing machine DYNA-MESS (DYNA-MESS Prüfmaschinen GmbH, Aachen, Germany). The test procedure started with a preloading of 10 N (compressive force). Then a mean compressive force of 60 N was applied and cyclic testing was performed with an amplitude of ± 50 N. The failure criterion was defined as a doubling of the initial screw displacement resulting from the mean compressive force (60 N) at the first cycle. In case the initial screw displacement was too high, the test was stopped when the upper and the lower setup component came into contact. For defined cycles, the relative motion of the screw-bone interface was detected by using specific optical markers (Fig. 5) and the digital image correlation system LIMESS (LIMESS Messtechnik und Software GmbH, Krefeld, Germany). The displacement analysis was performed in Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and Matlab R2019a (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA). After the dynamic testing, the screws were pulled out axially, as described above, to determine the remaining postfatigue fixation strength of the screws.

Statistical analyses

The datasets were compared descriptively using Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). Due to the small number of cases, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was performed. SPSS 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Most data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD).

Specimens

A total of 10 body donors (4 females, 6 males) were analysed (Table 1). The specimens of group A showed a mean age of 86.4 years and mean BMD of 0.839 ± 0.104 g/cm². Group B had a mean age of 86.2 years and a mean BMD of 0.820 ± 0.145 g/cm². All values did not differ significantly.

Both groups (CBT/MC, MC/TT) consisted of five body donors of five lumbar vertebrae each. While L1 and L3 of each cadaver were tested statically, L2, L4, and L5 were tested under dynamic testing conditions. However, L5 were only examined in group B.

Static test

In group A, 18 out of 20 screws were successfully pulled out. MC screw data were obtained from five L2 and three L4, whereas all ten CBT screws could be tested without any problems. In group B, one L4 had to be excluded because of its anatomical deformations. Hence, only 16 out of 18 screws could successfully pulled out. All MC screws could be tested in five L2 and four L4. By contrast, cement-augmented TT screws data were obtained from only four L2 and three L4. The group-specific mean pull-out forces of the different screws are shown in Table 2 and plotted in Fig. 6. All values did not differ significantly in consideration of n ≥ 5.

Dynamic test

In group A, only one out of ten MC screws failed prematurely due to loosening after 1,500 cycles (L3, cadaver ID: 05). By contrast, five CBT screws from three L1 (cadaver ID: 05, 06, 08) and two L3 (cadaver ID: 05, 08) did not reach the scheduled 10,000 cycles. They already loosened after 64, 450, 120, 26 and 260 cycles, respectively. In group B, one L3 (cadaver ID: 09) had to be excluded caused by its anatomical deformations. Thus, only nine vertebrae could be examined. No signs of failure or loosening were observed according to the cement-augmented TT screws. Three MC screws reached the failure criterion already after 26 cycles (L1, cadaver ID: 07), 1,510 cycles (L1, cadaver ID: 04), and 2,144 cycles (L3, cadaver ID: 04), respectively. Four more L5 were tested on sponsor’s demand. All screws successfully resisted cyclic loading.

The mean displacement was only analysed of those screws that reached total 10,000 cycles. In group A, the mean displacement between screw and bone according to the defined cycles was always lower in the MC screws (n = 9) compared to the CBT screws (n = 5) (Fig. 7). In group B, the cement-augmented TT screws (n = 9) showed always a lower mean displacement compared to the MC screws (n = 6) (Fig. 8). The same behaviour can be seen in the additionally tested L5 (n = 4) (Fig. 8). Because of the different numbers of vertebrae, there is no individual comparison.

The subsequent pull-out tests were only performed if no screw loosening occurred during the dynamic testing. As some vertebrae were breached, only four CBT screws and eight MC screws could be analysed. The pull-out tests (Table 2) showed that the remaining mean fixation strength of the MC screws (449.4 ± 298.9 N) was slightly higher compared to the mean pull-out force of the CBT screws (401.2 ± 261.4 N) (Fig. 6). As one vertebra had to be excluded and three MC screws loosened early, only six MC screws were pulled out, whereas nine TT screws could be tested. The MC screws (714.5 ± 488.0 N) were inferior to the cement-augmented TT screws (990.2 ± 451.9 N) concerning mean postfatigue fixation strength (Fig. 6). This fact was also confirmed by the tested L5. Here, the cement-augmented TT screws (n = 4) with a mean fixation strength of 1637.9 ± 222.8 N were superior to the MC screws (n = 3), which showed a mean pull-out force of 960.2 ± 141.5 N. But in a direct comparison of the vertebra-specific screws, MC screws showed two times (L1, cadaver ID: 09; L3, cadaver ID: 10) a higher mean pull-out force than the cement-augmented TT screws.

There are many different instrumentation techniques of the lumbar spine at present. However, there is still no clear consensus regarding the optimal screw design and screw trajectory, enhancing screw’s fixation strength significantly. Especially the treatment of osteoporotic bone is still challenging. As osteoporosis causes more loss of cancellous bone than cortical bone, special measures are needed. In the literature, cement-augmented pedicle screws are described as gold standard in osteoporotic spine instrumentation. Numerous biomechanical studies have demonstrated an increased pull-out strength of these screws [7, 8, 12, 16, 39]. Apart from that, good functional outcomes and low revision rates have been proven in clinical middle- and long-term studies [2, 5, 10, 11, 33]. However, cement augmentation is associated with several disadvantages such as the risk of cement leakage and subsequent embolism, exothermic properties or complications during the removal of the screws in case of revision [17, 19, 37]. Therefore, alternative techniques for the treatment of bones of compromised quality are necessary. In consideration of the required surgical demands, the CBT screw seems to be a promising approach. This is described as an attractive technique due to its less invasiveness. Furthermore, these thinner and shorter screws are characterized by their extensive contact with the solid cortical bone in contrast to TT pedicle screws. Thus, fixation strength rises, which is of particular relevance in osteoporotic bone. Santoni et al. [35] first reported the superiority of CBT screws in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar spines. In their report, CBT screws demonstrated a 30% greater uniaxial pull-out strength and an equivalent strength against toggle loading as compared to non-augmented TT screws. Baluch et al. [6] also compared the fixation strength of these screws. But they simulated more physiological conditions using cyclical loading and subsequent orthogonal screw pull-out. Their results also demonstrated the superior resistance of CBT screws. As there is no in vivo biomechanical study reporting on the mechanical behaviour of the CBT trajectory, Matsukawa et al. [27] evaluated the insertional torque using the CBT and TT fixation approach, respectively. The comparison of both techniques showed a significant difference in the mean maximum insertional torque in favour of the CBT screws. Within the scope of another study of Matsukawa et al. [28], a finite element analysis was performed. The results show a 26.4% greater mean pull-out strength, a mean 27.8% higher resistance to cephalocaudal loading, and 140.2% stronger stiffness to mediolateral loading than non-augmented TT screws. However, Wray et al. [41] reported equivalent mechanical fixation properties of both approaches in their cadaveric biomechanical study including pull-out and toggling testing. Contrary results were achieved by Akpolat et al. [1], who stated that non-augmented TT screws had a better fatigue performance compared to CBT screws in vertebrae of compromised bone quality. As the use of bone cement during posterior instrumentation of the osteoporotic spine represents the gold standard, augmented TT screws were compared to possible alternatives within this study. Moreover, this study was focused on screw size, which was also done by Matsukawa et al. [30]. They analysed the ideal screw size for optimal fixation to significantly enhance screw’s fixation strength. As mechanical stress is dependent on the dimension of the bone-screw interface, there is a higher risk of loosening with short pedicle screws. To reduce this risk, Matsukawa et al. [30] suggested the use of longer cortical screws to improve vertebral load transmission and to decrease mechanical stress. Finally, their finite element study demonstrated biomechanical superiority of a long trajectory with maximum cortical purchase. Therefore, the “long CBT” or MC screw, which is directed towards a more anterior position of the vertebral body compared to the original CBT, is recommended. Ideally, the CBT screw should have a diameter larger than 5.5 mm and a length longer than 35 mm (standard size) [30]. To the best of our knowledge, no studies concerning the biomechanical behavior of MC screws have previously been published. For this reason, our study was aimed at the evaluation of this approach compared to the original CBT and the gold standard used in osteoporotic spine instrumentation. However, reaching the correct trajectory is challenging for surgeons as this narrow screw path has to be created in the denser bone. Moreover, there are fewer anatomical landmarks available within the limited operative field. Apart from high-level surgical skills, intraoperative fluoroscopic support is needed to enhance accuracy and safety intraoperatively. In this context, using a patient-specific screw placement guide with a preplanned screw trajectory has been considered as a promising approach [20–22, 24, 31, 34]. Farshad et al. [15] demonstrated in a randomized cadaveric study that the guided pedicle screw placement using MySpine® (Medacta International SA, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) was superior in terms of faster instrumentation time, higher accuracy, and reduced radiation exposure compared to freehand fluoroscopically controlled pedicle screw placement. Moreover, this tool is characterized by its minimal invasiveness compared to conventional techniques. In this study, the MySpine® tool was used to ensure accurate cortical screw placement that crucially affects screw’s biomechanical properties. To analyse screws’ biomechanical behaviour, fatigue and pull-out testing were performed. In contrast to the often used pull-out test, the fatigue test setup provides a more clinically relevant failure scenario including more meaningful data [35]. Therefore, both groups were separated into two subgroups each, which were tested statically (pull-out) and dynamically (fatigue testing and ensuing pull-out), respectively.

In group A, both screw types had no significant differences concerning the static pull-out tests (Table 2). MC screws’ mean pull-out strength was only 2.7% higher than that of the CBT screws. However, this test procedure does not reflect physiological testing conditions. The dynamic comparison showed major differences both in cyclic loading and the ensuing pull-out test. Here, the CBT screws loosened early five times more frequently than the MC screws that failed only once. The CBT screw loosening always occurred within the first 500 cycles, which indicates inferior fixation. Consequently, it can be assumed that the larger length of the MC screw resulted in a better anchorage, which is proven by its comparably significant gain in screw’s stability. Similar results are demonstrated by Matsukawa et al. [30]. The ensuing pull-out tests also showed the superiority of the MC screws. Their higher mean failure loads (+ 12.1%) showed that MC screws resisted longer physiological loading than CBT screws did. This was due to MC screws’ design and screws’ trajectory, which allows more anchorage within the cortical bone. The displacement evaluation also substantiated the fact of CBT screws’ earlier loosening and higher range of motion during physiological cyclic loading.

In group B, the MC screws were compared to the cement-augmented TT screws mostly used for osteoporotic spine instrumentation. As expected, the pull-out tests showed higher mean failure loads of the TT screws both in the static (+ 42.8%) and dynamic (+ 38.6%) testing conditions. Weiser et al. [40] have even demonstrated that cement augmentation of osteoporotic bone can lead to an increase in failure load by approximately 52%. That can be attributed to the higher screw-bone purchase caused by the cement augmentation filling the porous bone. However, MC screws’ mean pull-out force of 691.0 N (static) or 714.5 N (dynamic) provides sufficient stability. Additionally, screws revision is possible without difficulty, whereas vertebrae mostly breach during pull-out of the cement-augmented TT screws. Moreover, screw’s solid augmentation results in a lower mean displacement compared to MC screws. The same can be observed based on the additionally tested L5. The tests also showed the superiority of the cement-augmented TT screws in both mean displacement and pull-out forces. But in a direct comparison of the L5, the MC screw showed once a lower range of motion during dynamic testing.

However, the varying sample sizes of the individual groups should be critically reviewed. Therefore, a more extensive evaluation with equal samples sizes should be striven.

The cement-augmented TT pedicle screws had the best fatigue performance as well as the highest pull-out forces in lumbar vertebrae of compromised bone quality. However, MC screws represent a promising alternative in case of reduced bone quality compared to the CBT screws as they showed substantially better results. Proving if MC trajectory is superior, a comparative study of non-augmented TT screws and MC screws is already planned. Especially, dynamic tests shall be performed as they provide a more clinically relevant failure scenario. Apart from that, the use of the patient-specific MySpine® placement guide is recommended because it firstly allows a safe placement of the screws according to the 3D planned trajectory and secondly because of its easy and fast handling. Moreover, the prevention of screw misplacement has a positive impact on the screw’s biomechanical behaviour, especially in osteoporotic bone.

bone mineral density (BMD), cortical bone trajectory (CBT), computed tomography (CT), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), lumbar vertebra (L), midline cortical (MC), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), standard deviation (SD), traditional trajectory (TT)

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Florian Metzner, Michael Schmidt, Franziska Karl and Marie Gerstner supporting the experimental implementation. The authors wish to thank Medacta International SA providing implants and equipment and planning of the trajectories. The authors acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University of Leipzig for Open Access Publishing.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All donors originated from the Institute of Anatomy of the University of Leipzig and had given written consent to dedicate their bodies to medical education and research purposes. Being part of the body donor program regulated by the Saxonian Death and Funeral Act of 1994 (3^rd section, paragraph 18, item 8), institutional approval for the use of the post-mortem tissues of human body donors was obtained. The authors declare that all experiments were performed according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki in accordance to the institutional ethics committee of the medical faculty of the University of Leipzig.

Consent to Publish

Not Applicable

Competing interests

CEH: Royalties of Medacta Int.

The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The study was financed by Medacta International SA, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland

Authors' contributions

JSJ and SS and ME were the major contributors in writing the manuscript;

JSJ and CP performed the implantation of the Screws

SS, ME and CO performed the biomechanical testing and the statistics

NVDH consulted relevant literature

CEH designed the study

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Akpolat YT, Inceoglu S, Kinne N, Hunt D, Cheng WK. Fatigue performance of cortical bone trajectory screw compared with standard trajectory pedicle screw. Spine 2016; 41(6):E335–E341
Amendola L, Gasbarrini A, Fosco M, Simoes CE, Terzi S, Iure F de, Boriani S. Fenestrated pedicle screws for cement-augmented purchase in patients with bone softening. A review of 21 cases. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2011; 12(4):193–199
American Society for Testing and Materials International. Standard Specification and Test Methods for Metallic Medical Bone Screws (ASTM F543-17), 2017;West Conshohocken, PA. http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?F543
American Society for Testing and Materials International. Standard Test Methods for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Vertebrectomy Model (ASTM F1717-18) 2018; West Conshohocken, PA. http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?F1717
Aydogan M, Ozturk C, Karatoprak O, Tezer M, Aksu N, Hamzaoglu A. The pedicle screw fixation with vertebroplasty augmentation in the surgical treatment of the severe osteoporotic spines. Clinical Spine Surgery 2009; 22(6):444–447
Baluch DA, Patel AA, Lullo B, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Nguyen N-L, Carandang G, Ghanayem AJ, Patwardhan AG. Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine 2014; 39(22):E1297–E1302
Bullmann V, Liljenqvist UR, Rödl R, Schulte TL. Pedicle screw augmentation from a biomechanical perspective. Der Orthopade 2010; 39(7):673–678
Burval DJ, McLain RF, Milks R, Inceoglu S. Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae. Biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength. Spine2007; 32(10):1077–1083
Cecchinato R, Berjano P, Zerbi A, Damilano M, Redaelli A, Lamartina C. Pedicle screw insertion with patient-specific 3D-printed guides based on low-dose CT scan is more accurate than free-hand technique in spine deformity patients. A prospective, randomized clinical trial. European Spine Journal 2019; 28(7):1712–1723
Chang M-C, Liu C-L, Chen T-H. Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of pedicle screw for osteoporotic spinal surgery. A novel technique. Spine 2008; 33(10):E317–E324
Chang M-C, Kao H-C, Ying S-H, Liu C-L. Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of cannulated pedicle screws for fixation in osteoporotic spines and comparison of its clinical results and biomechanical characteristics with the needle injection method. Clinical Spine Surgery 2013; 26(6):305–315
Choma TJ, Pfeiffer FM, Swope RW, Hirner JP. Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae. Effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine 2012; 37(26):E1628–E1632
Dai F, Liu Y, Zhang F, Sun D, Luo F, Zhang Z, Xu J; Surgical treatment of the osteoporotic spine with bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw fixation. Technical description and preliminary application in 43 patients. Clinics 2015; 70(2):114–119
Dayani F, Chen Y-R, Johnson E, Deb S, Wu Y, Pham L, Singh H. Minimally invasive lumbar pedicle screw fixation using cortical bone trajectory‐Screw accuracy, complications, and learning curve in 100 screw placements. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2019; 61:106–111
Farshad M, Betz M, Farshad-Amacker NA, Moser M. Accuracy of patient-specific template-guided vs. free-hand fluoroscopically controlled pedicle screw placement in the thoracic and lumbar spine. A randomized cadaveric study. European Spine Journal 2017; 26(3):738–749
Frankel BM, D’Agostino S, Wang C. A biomechanical cadaveric analysis of polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation. Journal of Neurosurgery 2007; Spine 7(1):47–53
Huang K-Y, Yan J-J, Lin R-M. Histopathologic findings of retrieved specimens of vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate cement. Case control study. Spine 2005; 30(19):E585–E588
Inceoğlu S, Montgomery WH, Clair SS, McLain RF: Pedicle screw insertion angle and pullout strength. Comparison of 2 proposed strategies. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2011; 14(5):670–676
Janssen I, Ryang Y-M, Gempt J, Bette S, Gerhardt J, Kirschke JS, Meyer B. Risk of cement leakage and pulmonary embolism by bone cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation of the thoracolumbar spine. The Spine Journal 2017;17(6):837–844
Kaito T, Matsukawa K, Abe Y, Fiechter M, Zhu X, Fantigrossi A. Cortical pedicle screw placement in lumbar spinal surgery with a patient-matched targeting guide. A cadaveric study. Journal of Orthopaedic Science 2018; 23(6):865–869
Kim SB, Rhee JM, Lee GS, Lee HY, Kim T, Won Y. Computer-assisted patient-specific prototype template for thoracolumbar cortical bone trajectory screw placement. A cadaveric study. Techniques in Orthopaedics 2018; 33(4):246–250
Lamartina C, Cecchinato R, Fekete Z, Lipari A, Fiechter M, Berjano P. Pedicle screw placement accuracy in thoracic and lumbar spinal surgery with a patient-matched targeting guide. A cadaveric study. European Spine Journal 2015; 24(7):937–941
Lubansu A, Rynkowski M, Abeloos L, Appelboom G, Dewitte O. Minimally invasive spinal arthrodesis in osteoporotic population using a cannulated and fenestrated augmented screw. Technical description and clinical experience. Minimally Invasive Surgery 2012 doi: 10.1155/2012/507826
Marengo N, Matsukawa K, Monticelli M, Ajello M, Pacca P, Cofano F, Penner F, Zenga F, Ducati A, Garbossa D. Cortical bone trajectory screw placement accuracy with a patient-matched 3-dimensional printed guide in lumbar spinal surgery. A clinical study. World neurosurgery 2019; 130:E98–E104
Martin-Fernandez M, López-Herradón, A.: Pinera, A. R., Tomé-Bermejo F, Duart JM, Vlad MD, Rodriguez-Arguisjuela MG, Alvarez-Galovich L. Potential risks of using cement-augmented screws for spinal fusion in patients with low bone quality. The Spine Journal 2017; 17(8):1192–1199
Matsukawa K. New Techniques and MIS. The cortical bone trajectory screws - indications and limits Modern Thoraco-Lumbar Implants for Spinal Fusion. Springer, 2018; S 113–126
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine 2014; 39(4):E240–E245
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. Biomechanical evaluation of the fixation strength of lumbar pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory. A finite element study. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2015; 23(4):471–478
Matsukawa K, Taguchi E, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. Evaluation of the fixation strength of pedicle screws using cortical bone trajectory. What is the ideal trajectory for optimal fixation? Spine 2015; 40(15):E873–E878
Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Abe Y, Asazuma T, Chiba K. Biomechanical evaluation of fixation strength among different sizes of pedicle screws using the cortical bone trajectory. What is the ideal screw size for optimal fixation? Acta neurochirurgica 2016 158(3):465–471
Matsukawa K, Kaito T, Abe Y. Accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement using patient-specific template guide system. Neurosurgical Review 2019:1–8
Moon BJ, Cho BY, Choi EY, Zhang HY. Polymethylmethacrylate-augmented screw fixation for stabilization of the osteoporotic spine. A three-year follow-up of 37 patients. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society 2009;46(4):305–311
Pinera AR, Duran C, Lopez B, Saez I, Correia E, Alvarez L. Instrumented lumbar arthrodesis in elderly patients. Prospective study using cannulated cemented pedicle screw instrumentation. European Spine Journal 2011; 20(3):408–414
Putzier M, Strube P, Cecchinato R, Lamartina C, Hoff EK. A new navigational tool for pedicle screw placement in patients with severe scoliosis. Clinical Spine Surgery 2017; 30(4):E430–E439
Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MAW, Womack WJ, Puttlitz CM. Cortical bone trajectory for lumbar pedicle screws. The Spine Journal 2009; 9(5):366–373
Shea TM, Laun J, Gonzalez-Blohm SA, Doulgeris JJ, Lee WE, Aghayev K, Vrionis FD Designs and techniques that improve the pullout strength of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Current status. BioMed research international 2014
Shridhar P, Chen Y, Khalil R, Plakseychuk A, Cho SK, Tillman B, Kumta PN, Chun Y. A review of PMMA bone cement and intra-cardiac embolism. Materials 2016; 9(10):821
Singh V, Mahajan R, Das K, Chhabra HS, Rustagi T. Surgical Trend Analysis for Use of Cement Augmented Pedicle Screws in Osteoporosis of Spine. A Systematic Review (2000-2017). Global Spine Journal 2019; 9(7):783–795
Tai C-L, Tsai T-T, Lai P-L, Chen Y-L, Liu M-Y, Chen L-H. A biomechanical comparison of expansive pedicle screws for severe osteoporosis. The effects of screw design and cement augmentation. 2015; PloS one 10(12)
Weiser L, Sehmisch S, Lehmann W, Viezens L. Techniken zur Steigerung der Pedikelschraubenstabilität im osteoporotischen Knochen. Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie 2019; 31(4):284–292
Wray S, Mimran R, Vadapalli S, Shetye SS, McGilvray KC, Puttlitz CM. Pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine. Effect of trajectory and screw design on acute biomechanical purchase. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2015; 22(5):503–510

Table 1: Specimens’ baseline characteristics

Cadaver ID	Group	Sex	Age in years	Body mass in kg	Bone mineral density in g/cm²
01	A	m	82	82	0.906
02	A	m	78	60	0.774
03	B	m	90	69	1.043
04	B	m	97	58	0.743
05	A	f	85	30	0.985
06	A	f	80	70	0.730
07	B	f	96	41	0.653
08	A	m	86	50	0.798
09	B	m	92	61	0.819
10	B	f	77	86	0.842
Group: A - CBT/MC, B - MC/TT; Sex: f - female, m - male

Table 2: Screw’s group-specific mean pull-out forces in consideration of the testing conditions

		Pull-out force in N
		Group A			Group B
		CBT	MC	p	TT	MC	p
Static test	Total	587.9 ± 309.1	603.8 ± 227.7	0.633	986.8 ± 302.7	691.0 ± 375.2	0.174
	L2	581.3 ± 307.7	649.2 ± 266.4	0.548	1003.5 ± 341.4	559.7 ± 382.6	0.111
	L4	594.5 ± 310.4	528.2 ± 104.1	1.000	964.6 ± 239.9	855.1 ± 292.1	0.857
Dynamic test	Total	401.2 ± 261.4	449.4 ± 298.9	0.933	990.2 ± 451.9	714.5 ± 488.0	0.388
	L1	424.7 ± 349.5	339.1 ± 285.9	0.857	1193.0 ± 311.7	928.5 ± 579.3	1.000
	L3	377.8 ± 115.6	633.2 ± 219.1	0.400	736.8 ± 471.7	500.4 ± 221.4	0.629
	L5	-	-	-	1637.9 ± 222.8	960.2 ± 141.5	0.057
Static test: pull-out; Dynamic test: fatigue testing + pull-out

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 05 May, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders →

Editorial decision: Major revision
20 Jan, 2021
Review #3 received at journal
17 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
17 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed at journal
04 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received at journal
07 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
10 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
23 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
08 Oct, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
07 Oct, 2020
Editor invited by journal
01 Oct, 2020
First submitted to journal
21 Sep, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparison of Three Different Screw Trajectories in Osteoporotic Vertebrae: A Biomechanical Investigation

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Specimens and grouping

Preoperative planning

Test preparation

Biomechanical testing

Static test

Dynamic test

Statistical analyses

Results

Specimens

Static test

Dynamic test

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1