Conventional Pedicle Screw Group Research Articles

Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine

The present study examined the necessity of cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic patients with single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis.Fifty-nine cases were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-three cases were in the polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) group, and the other 26 cases were in the conventional pedicle screw (CPS) group. Evaluation data included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization cost, hospitalization days, rates of fusion, screw loosening, bone cement leakage, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT) and sacral slope (SS).The operation time and blood loss in the CPS group decreased significantly compared to those in the PMMA-PS group. The average hospitalization cost of the PMMA-PS group was significantly higher than that of the CPS group. There was no significant difference in the average hospital stay between the 2 groups. The initial and last follow-up postoperative VAS and ODI scores improved significantly in the two groups. There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI between the 2 groups at each time point. The last postoperative spine-pelvic parameters were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively. In the PMMA-PS group, the fusion rate was 100%. The fusion rate was 96.15% in the CPS group. No significant difference was found between the two groups for the fusion rate. Nine patients in the PMMA-PS group had bone cement leakage. There was no screw loosening in the PMMA-PS group. There were 2 cases of screw loosening in the CPS group. There were no significant differences in screw loosening, postoperative adjacent segment fractures, postoperative infection or postoperative revision between the 2 groups. The use of PMMA-PS on a regular basis is not recommended in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws and conventional pedicle screw in surgery for spinal metastases: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

The incidence of cancer patients with bone metastasis is increasing annually. With the advancement of medical treatment for malignant tumors, the survival time of patients with spinal metastases is gradually being prolonged, and adjacent segment vertebral metastases often occur after conventional pedicle screw (CPS) surgery, leading to spinal instability, pain and nerve function injury again, with repeated symptoms. Combined pedicle screw fixation can maintain or reconstruct the spinal stability. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screws in the posterior approach for spinal metastases by comparing with CPS. From January 2017 to August 2019, 52 patients with spinal metastases who underwent separation surgery and internal fixation via posterior approach were retrospectively enrolled. Cases were divided into the cement-augmented pedicle screw (CAPS) group (28 cases) and the CPS group (24 cases). The baseline data [age, gender, surgical sites, surgical segment, Tomita classification, Tomita score, Tokuhashi score, spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS)], surgical information, and local progression-free survival (PFS) time were compared between the two groups. Every patient was followed-up every 3 months with imaging examination. The visual analog scale (VAS) score and Frankel grade of the two groups were recorded before and 3 months after the operation were used to evaluate the efficacy. The operation time, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, the amount of bone cement injected in the pedicle screw group, and the complications of the surgery were recorded to evaluate the safety of CAPS. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two group. Compared with the CPS group, the CAPS group showed significantly longer operation time (163±20 vs. 138±18 min, P<0.001) and lower VAS scores (2.93±1.33 vs. 4.17±1.34, P=0.002). Adjacent segment vertebral metastasis occurred in 10 cases (2 in the CAPS group and 8 in the CPS group, P=0.017). Internal implant failure occurred in 8 cases (1 in the CAPS group and 7 in the CPS group, P=0.011). Compared with the CPS group, the CAPS group had a significantly longer local PFS time (P<0.05). CAPS could be a safe and effective choice in surgery for spinal metastases with the posterior approach.

Effect and potential risks of using multilevel cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic spine with lumbar degenerative disease

BackgroundThe increase of augmented level and bone cement dose are accompanied by the rising incidence of cement leakage (CL) of cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation (CAPSI). But the effect and potential risks of the application of CAPSI to osteoporotic lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) have not been studied in the case of multilevel fixation. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and potential complications of using multilevel CAPSI for patients with osteoporotic LDD.MethodsA total of 93 patients with multilevel LDD were divided into the CAPSI group (46 subjects) and the conventional pedicle screw (CPS) group (47 subjects), including 75 cases for three levels and 18 cases for four levels. Relevant data were compared between two groups, including baseline data, clinical results, and complications.ResultsIn the CAPSI group, a total of 336 augmented screws was placed bilaterally. The CL was observed in 116 screws (34.52%). Three cemented screws (0.89%) were found loosened during the follow-up and the overall fusion rate was 93.47%. For perioperative complications, two patients (4.35%) experienced pulmonary cement embolism (PCE), one patient augmented vertebral fracture, and three patients (6.52%) wound infection. And in the CPS group, thirty-three screws (8.46%) suffered loosening in cranial and caudal vertebra with a fusion rate of 91.49%. The operation time and hospital stay of CAPSI group were longer than the CPS group, but CAPSI group has a lower screw loosening percentage (P<0. 05). And in terms of blood loss, perioperative complications, fusion rate, and VAS and ODI scores at the follow-up times, there were no significant differences between the two groups.ConclusionsPatients with osteoporotic LDD underwent multilevel CPS fixation have a higher rate of screw loosening in the cranial and caudal vertebra. The application of cemented pedicle screws for multilevel LDD can achieve better stability and less screw loosening, but it also accompanied by longer operating time, higher incidence of CL, PCE and wound infections. Selective cement augmentation of cranial and caudal pedicle screws may be a worthy strategy to decrease the complications.

Biomechanical Comparison of Expansive Pedicle Screw and Polymethylmethacrylate-augmented Pedicle Screw in Osteoporotic Synthetic Bone in Primary Implantation: An Experimental Study.

Expansive pedicle screws (EPS) and polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screws (PMMA-PS) were inserted into osteoporotic synthetic bones, which were then tested by radiographic and biomechanical examinations. To compare the stability of EPS and PMMA-PS with that of a conventional pedicle screw (CPS) in an osteoporotic synthetic bone. It is a significant challenge for orthopedic surgeons performing transpedicular fixation in the osteoporotic spine. Prior studies have suggested that both EPS and PMMA-PS can increase the screw stability effectively. However, there are no biomechanical comparisons of EPS and PMMA-PS, especially in primary spinal surgery in osteoporosis. Thirty osteoporotic synthetic bone blocks were divided into 3 groups randomly. A pilot hole was prepared in advance in all samples by the same method. Then, the CPS was inserted directly into the pilot hole in the CPS group; the hole in the PMMA-PS group was first filled with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA; 2.5 mL) and then inserted with CPS, and the EPS was inserted directly into the blocks in the EPS group. Twenty-four hours later, x-ray and computed tomography examination and axial pullout tests were performed on all samples; the block destructions were then recorded, and the hole diameters were measured. In the CPS group, the screw was surrounded directly by the synthetic bone without any other materials, whereas in the PMMA-PS group, the screw was totally wrapped up by PMMA, and the PMMA was evenly distributed in the synthetic bone around the screw, indicating obvious improvement of the local density around the track. In the EPS group, the anterior part of the EPS presented an obvious expansion in synthetic bone and formed an unguiform structure pressing the surrounding synthetic bone. Screw stabilities in both the PMMA-PS and the EPS groups were significantly enhanced compared with those in the CPS group, and the screw stability in the PMMA-PS group was significantly higher than that in the EPS group. After the pullout tests, the block destructions were the most severe in the PMMA-PS group and the lightest in the CPS group. Hole diameters in the PMMA-PS and the EPS groups were significantly larger than that in the CPS group, whereas the diameter of the hole in the PMMA-PS group was significantly greater than that in the EPS group. EPS can significantly increase the strength of screw fixation compared with CPS in osteoporotic synthetic bone. Although EPS shows a weaker fixation strength compared with PMMA-PS in the osteoporotic synthetic bone, it may still provide an alternative option to prevent screw loosening in the clinical treatment of osteoporosis.

Comparison of bone cement augmented with traditional pedicle screw in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease

Objective To compare post-operative clinical outcomes between bone cement augmented pedicle screw and traditional pedicle screw in treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Methods Data of 40 cases with lumbar degenerative disease who had surgery from May 2013 to May 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into two groups according to whether the bone cement was injected in the vertebral body with pedicle screw: conventional group and augmented group. There were 5 males and 15 females in conventional group with an average age of 73.2, among them there were 12 cases of lumbar disc prolapse and 8 cases of lumbar spinal stenosis. There were 6 males and 14 females with an average age of 73.7, among them there were 12 cases of lumbar disc prolapse and 8 cases of lumbar spinal stenosis. The screws were inserted into L3, L4, L5, and S1 with a total of 170 vertebral bodies. The Oswestry Disability Iindex (ODI), intervertebral distance of the upper adjacent segments, deformation index of the upper adjacent vertebral body, Cobb angle, concave angle of the fixed lumbar vertebrae superior end-plate and the upper adjacent vertebral body inferior end-plate were measured pre-operation, 30 d postoperatively and at final follow-up. Results 40 patients were followed-up for 3-24 months (average 12.2 months). The ODI of traditional group and bone cement augmented group respectively was 13.0%±4.9% and 11.0%±8.0%, and there was no significant difference between two groups. The change of Cobb angle of fixed lumbar vertebrae at the final follow-up and 30 days postoperatively was 5.53°±1.64° and 2.15°±0.97°. The concave angle of upper end-plate was increased in bone cement augmented group at 30 days after operation compared with that in conventional group; the lower end-plate concave angle of adjacent centrum, the rectangular index and the adjacent intervertebral space of conventional pedicle screw with bone cement group was all decreased in the final follow-up, and the change of the first two indicators was significantly bigger than those in the conventional pedicle screw group. Conclusion Both groups can effectively treat the degenerative lumbar disease, but bone cement augmented pedicle screw can maintain the stability of the spine of aged patients better. Key words: Osteoporosis; Bone screws; Lumbar vertebrae; Intervertebral disc degeneration

Biomechanical and finite element analyses of bone cement-Injectable cannulated pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic bone.

The objectives of this study were to investigate the safety and biomechanical stability of a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-augmented bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw (CICPS) in cancellous bone model, and to analyze the stress distribution at the screw-cement-bone interface. The OMEGA cannulated pedicle screw (OPS) and conventional pedicle screw (CPS) were used as control groups. Safety of the CICPS was evaluated by the static bending and bending fatigue tests. Biomechanical stability was analyzed by the maximum axial pullout strength and maximum torque tests. Stress distribution at the screw-cement-bone interface was analyzed by the finite element (FE) method. The CICPS and CPS produced statistically similar values for bending stiffness, bending structural stiffness, and bending yield moment. The maximum pullout force was 53.47 ± 8.65 N in CPS group, compared to 130.82 ± 7.32 N and 175.45 ± 43.01 N in the PMMA-augmented OPS and CICPS groups, respectively (p < 0.05). The CICPS had a significantly greater torque than the OPS and CPS. The FE model did not reveal excessive stress at the screw-cement-bone interface in the CICPS group. In conclusion, PMMA-augmentation with CICPS may be a potentially useful method to increase the stability of pedicle screws in patients with osteoporosis. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 104B: 960-967, 2016.

Comparison of 2 Kinds of Pedicle Screws in Primary Spinal Instrumentation

Expansive pedicle screw (EPS) and polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) were inserted in sheep vertebrae in vitro and were evaluated by performing biomechanical tests, radiographic examinations and histological observations. The objective of the study was to compare the biomechanical and interfacial performances of EPS and PMMA-PS in sheep lumbar vertebrae in vitro. It is a great challenge for orthopedic surgeons performing transpedicular fixation in the osteoporotic spine. It was reported that either the EPS or PMMA-PS could increase the screw stability. However, there are no studies comparing the 2 kinds of screws especially in primary spinal instrumentation. A total of 60 sheep lumbar vertebrae were randomly divided into 3 groups. A pilot hole was made in advance in all samples using the same method. Thereafter, the conventional pedicle screw (CPS) was inserted directly into the pilot hole in the CPS group; the hole in PMMA-PS group was first filled with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA; 1.0 mL) and then inserted with CPS; and the EPS was inserted directly into the vertebrae in EPS group. After a period of 24 hours, biomechanical tests were performed to evaluate screw stability, and x-ray examination, micro-computerized tomography analysis, and histologic observation were performed to evaluate the interface between screw and bone. Compared with the stability of CPS, those of EPS and PMMA-PS were significantly enhanced. However, no significant differences were detected between the stabilities of EPS and PMMA-PS. The PMMA surrounding the screw blocked direct contact between bone and screw and formed a "screw-PMMA-bone" interface in the PMMA-PS group. There was a "screw-bone" interface in both CPS and EPS groups. Nevertheless, the expanded anterior part of EPS formed a claw-like structure pressing the surrounding bone trabeculae, which made the local bone tissue more compacted and denser than that in the CPS group. EPS can enhance the screw stability as markedly as the traditional PMMA-PS in primary surgery, and EPS can form a better immediate interface between screw and bone compared with PMMA-PS. EPS also can effectively avoid thermal injury, leakage, and compression caused by PMMA. A great feasibility was proved in this study to perform comparisons between the 2 kinds of pedicle screws in osteoporotic sheep vertebrae in vivo in the further research. In conclusion, we propose that EPS has a great application potential in augmentation of screw stability in the clinic.

Comparison of Expansive Pedicle Screw and Polymethylmethacrylate-Augmented Pedicle Screw in Osteoporotic Sheep Lumbar Vertebrae: Biomechanical and Interfacial Evaluations

BackgroundIt was reported that expansive pedicle screw (EPS) and polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) could be used to increase screw stability in osteoporosis. However, there are no studies comparing the two kinds of screws in vivo. Thus, we aimed to compare biomechanical and interfacial performances of EPS and PMMA-PS in osteoporotic sheep spine.Methodology/Principal FindingsAfter successful induction of osteoporotic sheep, lumbar vertebrae in each sheep were randomly divided into three groups. The conventional pedicle screw (CPS) was inserted directly into vertebrae in CPS group; PMMA was injected prior to insertion of CPS in PMMA-PS group; and the EPS was inserted in EPS group. Sheep were killed and biomechanical tests, micro-CT analysis and histological observation were performed at both 6 and 12 weeks post-operation. At 6-week and 12-week, screw stabilities in EPS and PMMA-PS groups were significantly higher than that in CPS group, but there were no significant differences between EPS and PMMA-PS groups at two study periods. The screw stability in EPS group at 12-week was significantly higher than that at 6-week. The bone trabeculae around the expanding anterior part of EPS were more and denser than that in CPS group at 6-week and 12-week. PMMA was found without any degradation and absorption forming non-biological “screw-PMMA-bone” interface in PMMA-PS group, however, more and more bone trabeculae surrounded anterior part of EPS improving local bone quality and formed biological “screw-bone” interface.Conclusions/SignificanceEPS can markedly enhance screw stability with a similar effect to the traditional method of screw augmentation with PMMA in initial surgery in osteoporosis. EPS can form better biological interface between screw and bone than PMMA-PS. In addition, EPS have no risk of thermal injury, leakage and compression caused by PMMA. We propose EPS has a great application potential in augmentation of screw stability in osteoporosis in clinic.

Biomechanical comparison of different techniques in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: expansive pedicle screw versus polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw

Transpedicular fixation can be challenging in the osteoporotic spine. Expansive pedicle screw (EPS) and polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) were both used to increase screw stability. However, there are a little or no biomechanical comparisons of EPS and PMMA-PS, especially in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic vertebrae. The purpose of this study was to compare the stability of EPS and PMMA-PS in primary spinal surgery. Fifteen osteoporotic vertebrae were randomly divided into three groups. The conventional pedicle screw (CPS) was inserted in CPS group, the pilot hole was filled with PMMA followed by CPS insertion in PMMA-PS group, and EPS was inserted in EPS group. Twenty-four hours later, X-ray and CT examination and biomechanical tests were performed to all vertebrae. In PMMA-PS group, PMMA existed in bone tissue around the CPS in both vertebral body and pedicle of vertebral arch, and PMMA surrounding the screw formed a spindle-shaped structure in vertebral body. In EPS group, anterior part of EPS presented an obvious expansion in vertebral body and formed a clawlike structure. Screw stabilities in PMMA-PS and EPS groups were significantly enhanced compared with those in CPS group (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between PMMA-PS and EPS groups (P > 0.05). Expansive pedicle screw can markedly enhance screw stability with a similar effect to the traditional method of screw augmentation with PMMA in primary surgery in osteoporotic vertebrae. In addition, EPS can overcome pedicle fracture, leakage and compression caused by lager screw and augmentation with PMMA. We propose that EPS is an effective, safe and easy method and has a great application potential in augmentation of screw stability in osteoporosis in clinic.

Biomechanical evaluation of fixation strength of conventional and expansive pedicle screws with or without calcium based cement augmentation

Background The expansive pedicle screw was originally developed to be installed in the bone of compromised quality, but there are some concerns whether it can provide enough fixation strength in the spine with osteoporosis or severe osteoporosis. Methods Twelve fresh human cadaver spines were stratified into four levels: normal, osteopenia, osteoporosis and severe osteoporosis. The vertebra was bilaterally instrumented with pedicle screws according to four protocols, including conventional pedicle screw without augmentation, expansive pedicle screw without augmentation, conventional screw with augmentation and expansive screw with augmentation. Screw pullout tests were conducted. Findings Given the same specimen, the fixation strength of expansive screw was significantly higher than that of the conventional screw. When the same type of screw was used, the fixation strength of the calcium based cement augmented group was stronger than that of the non-augmented group. The pullout strength and stiffness of the expansive screw, augmented conventional screw and augmented expansive screw groups at the osteoporotic level were comparable to those of the conventional pedicle screw group at the osteopenic level. However, under the severely osteoporotic bone environment, the pullout strength of pedicle screw with whatever placement protocol was significantly lower than that of the conventional screw group at the osteopenic level. Interpretation Our results demonstrate that (i) the expansive pedicle screw appears feasible and safe in either osteopenic or osteoporotic spine; (ii) calcium based cement augmentation can offer improved initial fixation strength of pedicle screws.; and (iii) no screw placement protocol we examined is efficacious in the bone at the severely osteoporotic level.