Abstract
A biomechanical study assessing pedicle screw fixation with three different augmentation methods was performed in human cadaveric vertebrae. Precision opto-electronic measurement of screw motion assessed motion magnitude and patterns, ie translation and/or rotation. Physiological cyclic loads were applied as opposed to the simple pull out test. Augmentation with wires, hook or cement decreased overall motion. There were no significant differences in motion magnitude between the three augmentation methods. Motion patterns for screws with cement augmentation were mainly rotational and differed from the other two methods. Rigid body translations were observed with wires or hook augmentation, suggesting a loosening behaviour. Augmentation with cement resulted in better fixation than wires or hook.
Augmentation of loosened pedicle screws in poor quality bone is often necessary. The purpose of this study was to contrast the kinematics of loosened pedicle screws augmented with laminar hooks, sublaminar wires or calcium phosphate cement.
Cyclic tests of pedicle screws with compressive force and bending moment were carried out on forty-eight screws in twenty-four cadaveric vertebrae (L3-L5) augmented with hooks, wires or cement. Motion at the screw tip and screw head were measured using an optoelectronic camera system and the magnitudes compared in a paired manner using non-parametric statistics. Motion patterns of the screws were determined for each augmentation method.
Augmentation with hook, wire or cement decreased screw motion. There was no significant difference between augmentation methods when the magnitudes of motion, described as ranges and offsets, were compared. Augmentation with cement resulted in mainly rotations of the screws while there were rigid body translations with wires or hooks.
Comparing magnitudes of motion at the screw head and screw tip were insufficient. The screw head and screw tip could be moving in synchronous, indicating rigid body translations. Using simple pull out tests would not detect such differences.
The method used in this study contrasted pedicle screws motion with different augmentations. While there was no detected significant difference in motion magnitude of the pedicle screws, the motion pattern of the screws suggested better augmentation with cement.
Motion of pedicle screws in situ had not been described in the literature. Previous work comparing pedicle screws fixation used the pull out test, while the current method applied physiological loads.
Funding: Funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Funding from Synthes
Spine Please contact author for diagrams and/or graphs.
Correspondence should be addressed to Cynthia Vezina, Communications Manager, COA, 4150-360 Ste. Catherine St. West, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada
