RESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE: To assess revision pullout strength of novel anchored screws (AS) versus conventional larger diameter traditional pedicle screws (TPS) in an osteoporotic model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pedicle screws are the most ubiquitous method of treating spinal pathologies requiring lumbar fusion. Although these screws are effective in providing 3-column stabilization of the spine, revision surgeries are occasionally necessary, particularly for geriatric and osteoporotic populations. Innovative technologies should be tested to ensure continued improvement in revision techniques. METHODS: For 4 specimens at L2-L5 (T-score=-3.6±0.54), 6.5-mm-diameter TPS were inserted into left and right pedicles and were pulled out; revision screws were then inserted. Polyether-ether-ketone anchors, designed to expand around a 6.5-mm screw, were inserted into all left pedicles. On the contralateral side, 7.5-mm-diameter TPS were inserted at L2-L3, and 8.5-mm-diameter TPS at L4-L5. Pullout testing was performed at 10 mm/min. The maximum pullout strength and insertion forces were recorded. RESULTS: The initial average pullout force (6.5-mm screw) was 837 N (±329 N) and 642 N (±318 N) in L2-L3 and L4-L5 left pedicles, and 705 N (±451 N) and 779 N (±378 N) in L2-L3 and L4-L5 right pedicles, respectively. Comparison of revision pullout forces versus initial pullout forces revealed the following: 87% and 63% for AS in L2-L3 and L4-L5 left pedicles, respectively; 56% for 7.5-mm and 93% for 8.5-mm TPS in L2-L3 and L4-L5 right pedicles, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Anchor sleeves with 6.5-mm-diameter pedicle screws provided markedly higher resistance to screw pullout than 7.5-mm-diameter revision screws and fixation statistically equivalent to 8.5-mm-diameter screws, possibly because of medial-lateral expansion within the vertebral space and/or convex filling of the pedicle. AS results had the lowest SD, indicating minimal variability in bone-screw purchase.
Assuntos
Osteoporose/fisiopatologia , Osteoporose/cirurgia , Parafusos Pediculares , Fenômenos Biomecânicos , Osso e Ossos/fisiopatologia , Osso e Ossos/cirurgia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Torque , Falha de TratamentoRESUMO
STUDY DESIGN: Survey of spine surgeons and biomechanical comparison of screw pullout forces. OBJECTIVE: To investigate what may be a suboptimal practice regularly occurring in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In order for a tap to function in its intended manner, the pitch of the tap should be the same as the pitch of the screw. Undertapping has been shown to increase the pullout force of pedicle screws compared with line-to-line tapping. However, given the way current commercial lumbar pedicle screw systems are designed, undertapping may result in a tap being used that has a different pitch from that of the screw (incongruent pitch). METHODS: A survey asked participants questions to estimate the proportion of cases each participant performed in the prior year using various hole preparation techniques. Participant responses were interpreted in the context of manufacturing specifications of specific instrumentation systems. Screw pullout forces were compared between undertapping with incongruent pitch and undertapping with congruent pitch using 0.16 g/cm polyurethane foam block and 6.5-mm screws. RESULTS: Of the 3679 cases in which participants reported tapping, participants reported line-to-line tapping in 209 cases (5%), undertapping with incongruent pitch in 1156 cases (32%), and undertapping with congruent pitch in 2314 cases (63%). The mean pullout force for undertapping with incongruent pitch was 56 N (8%) less than the mean pullout force for undertapping with congruent pitch. This is equivalent to 13 lb. CONCLUSION: This study estimates that for about 1 out of every 3 surgical cases with tapping of lumbar pedicle screws in the United States, hole preparation is being performed by undertapping with incongruent pitch. This study also shows that undertapping with incongruent pitch results in a decrease in pullout force by 8% compared with undertapping with congruent pitch. Steps should be taken to correct this suboptimal practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.