Comparison study of the pullout strength of conventional spinal pedicle screws and a novel design in full and backed-out insertions using mechanical tests

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine

Volumn 228, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 250-257

  Amaritsakul, Yongyut ^a   Chao, Ching Kong ^a   Lin, Jinn ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Backed out insertion; Double dual core screw; Full insertion; Pedicle screw; Pullout strength

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; FASTENERS;

BACKED-OUT INSERTION; DUAL CORE; FULL INSERTION; PEDICLE SCREWS; PULL-OUT STRENGTH;

SCREWS;

POLYURETHAN; POLYURETHAN FOAM;

MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICAL STRESS; PEDICLE SCREW; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS;

MATERIALS TESTING; PEDICLE SCREWS; POLYURETHANES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; STRESS, MECHANICAL;

EID: 84902137662     PISSN: 09544119     EISSN: 20413033     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0954411914522437     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Griza S, Andrade CEC, Batista WW, et al. Case study of Ti6Al4V pedicle screw failures due to geometric and microstructural aspects. Eng Fail Anal 2012; 25: 133-143.
2. Chao CK, Hsu CC, Wang JW, et al. Increasing bending strength and pullout strength in conical pedicle screws: biomechanical tests and finite element analyses. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 130-138.
3. Roy-Camille R, Sailant G and Mazzel C. Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 203: 7-17.
4. Gaines RW Jr.The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82(10): 1458-1476.
5. Chen CS, Chen WJ, Cheng CK, et al. Failure analysis of broken pedicle screws on spinal instrumentation. Med Eng Phys 2005; 27: 487-496.
6. Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, et al. Can insertional torque predict screw loosening and related failures? An in vivo study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2000; 25: 858-864.
7. Hsu CC, Chao CK, Wang JL, et al. Increase of pullout strength of spinal pedicle screws with conical core: biomechanical tests and finite element analyses. J Orthop Res 2005; 23: 788-794.
8. Misenhimer GR, Peek RD, Wiltse LL, et al. Anatomic analysis of pedicle cortical and cancellous diameter as related to screw size. Spine 1989; 14: 367-372.
9. Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R, et al. Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1462-1469.
10. Jin W and Wang Z. Clinical evaluation of the stability of single-segment short pedicle screw fixation for the reconstruction of lumbar and sacral tuberculosis lesions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 1429-1435.
11. Ronderos JF, Jacobowitz R, Sonntag VK, et al. Comparative pull-out strength of tapped and untapped pilot holes for bicortical anterior cervical screws. Spine 1997; 22: 167-170.
12. Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, et al. Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine 1994; 19: 2415-2420.
13. Palmer DK, Rios D, Patacxil WM, et al. Pullout of a lumbar plate with varying screw lengths. Int J Spine Surg 2012; 6: 8-12.
14. Cook SD, Salkeld SL, Stanley T, et al. Biomechanical study of pedicle screw fixation in severely osteoporotic bone. Spine J 2004; 4: 402-408.
15. Abshire BB, McLain RF, Valdevit A, et al. Characteristics of pullout failure in conical and cylindrical pedicle screws after full insertion and back-out. Spine J 2001; 1: 408-414.
16. Lill CA, Schlegel U, Wahl D, et al. Comparison of the in vitro holding strengths of conical and cylindrical pedicle screws in a fully inserted setting and backed out 180-. J Spinal Disord 2000; 13: 259-266.
17. Lill CA, Schneider E, Goldhahn J, et al. Mechanical performance of cylindrical and dual core pedicle screws in calf and human vertebrae. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2006; 126: 686-694.
18. Wu ZX, Gong FT, Liu L, et al. A comparative study on screw loosening in osteoporotic lumbar spine fusion between expandable and conventional pedicle screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 471-476.
19. Vishnubhotla S, McGarry WB, Mahar AT, et al. A titanium expandable pedicle screw improves initial pullout strength as compared with standard pedicle screws. Spine J 2011; 11: 777-781.
20. Chen LH, Tai CL, Lai PL, et al. Pullout strength for cannulated pedicle screws with bone cement augmentation in severely osteoporotic bone: influences of radial hole and pilot hole tapping. Clin Biomech 2009; 24: 613-618.
21. Chatzistergos PE, Magnissalis EA and Kourkoulis SK. A parametric study of cylindrical pedicle screw design implications on the pullout performance using an experimentally validated finite-element model. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32: 145-154.
22. Mehta H, Santos E, Ledonio C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of pedicle screw thread differential design in an osteoporotic cadaver model. Clin Biomech 2012; 27: 234-240.
23. Jacob AT, Ingalhalikar AV, Morgan JH, et al. Biomechanical comparison of single-and dual-lead pedicle screws in cadaveric spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8: 52-57.
24. Mummaneni PV, Haddock SM, Liebschner, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a double-threaded pedicle screw in elderly vertebrae. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002; 15: 64-68.
25. Paik H, Dmitriev AE, Lehman RA Jr, et al. The biomechanical effect of pedicle screw hubbing on pullout resistance in the thoracic spine. Spine J 2012; 12: 417-424.
26. Ruland CM, McAfee PC, Warden KE, et al. Triangulation of pedicular instrumentation: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 1991; 16: S270-S276.
27. Sterba W, Kim DG, Fyhrie DP, et al. Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 385-391.
28. Fakhouri SF, Zamarioli A, Wichr CRG, et al. Biomechanical study of the pullout resistance in screws of a vertebral fixation system. Adv Mech Eng 2011; 2011: 701263.
29. Johnston TL, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, et al. Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths. Spine J 2006; 6: 667-672.
30. Azwan MS and Rahim IA. Recent studies on the pullout strength behavior of spinal fixation. J Dev Biol Tiss Eng 2011; 3: 48-54.
31. Chapman JR, Harrington RM, Lee KM, et al. Factors affecting the pullout strength of cancellous bone screws. J Biomech Eng 1996; 118: 391-398.
32. Kim YY, Choi WS and Rhyu KW. Assessment of pedicle screw pullout strength based on various screw designs and bone densities-an ex vivo biomechanical study. Spine J 2012; 12: 164-168.
33. Keaveny TM, Pinilla TP, Crawford RP, et al. Systematic and random errors in compression testing of trabecular bone. J Orthop Res 1997; 15: 101-110.
34. Kopperdahl DL and Keaveny TM. Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. J Biomech 1998; 31: 601-608.
35. Mehmanparast HN, Mac-Thiong JM and Petit Y. Compressive properties of a synthetic bone substitute for vertebral cancellous bone. Int J Med Biol Sci 2012; 6: 287-290.
36. Morgan EF, Yeh OC, Chang WC, et al. Nonlinear behavior of trabecular bone at small strains. J Biomech Eng 2001; 123: 1-9.
37. Chao CK, Lin J, Putra ST, et al. A neurogenetic approach to a multiobjective design optimization of spinal pedicle screws. J Biomech Eng 2010; 132: 091006.
38. Chen SI, Lin RM and Chang CH. Biomechanical investigation of pedicle screw-vertebrae complex: a finite element approach using bonded and contact interface conditions. Med Eng Phys 2003; 25: 275-282.
39. Manbachi A, Cobbold RSC and Ginsberg HJ. Guided pedicle screw insertion: techniques and training. Spine J 2014; 14: 165-179.
40. Yerby SA, Ehteshami JR and McLain RF. Loading of pedicle screws within the vertebra. J Biomech 1997; 30: 951-954.
41. Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Weber U, et al. Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterized internal spinal fixation device. Spine 2000; 25: 2981-2986.