Aims

To explore the clinical efficacy of using two different types of articulating spacers in two-stage revision for chronic knee periprosthetic joint infection (kPJI).

Aims. Anchorage of pedicle screw rod instrumentation in the elderly spine with poor bone quality remains challenging. Our study aims to evaluate how the screw bone anchorage is affected by screw design, bone quality, loading conditions, and cementing techniques. Methods. Micro-finite element (µFE) models were created from micro-CT (μCT) scans of vertebrae implanted with two types of pedicle screws (L: Ennovate and R: S. 4. ). Simulations were conducted for a 10 mm radius region of interest (ROI) around each screw and for a full vertebra (FV) where different cementing scenarios were simulated around the screw tips. Stiffness was calculated in pull-out and anterior bending loads. Results. Experimental pull-out strengths were excellently correlated to the µFE pull-out stiffness of the ROI (R. 2. > 0.87) and FV (R. 2. > 0.84) models. No significant difference due to screw design was observed. Cement augmentation increased pull-out stiffness by up to 94% and 48% for L and R screws, respectively, but only increased bending stiffness by up to 6.9% and 1.5%, respectively. Cementing involving only one screw tip resulted in lower stiffness increases in all tested screw designs and loading cases. The stiffening effect of cement augmentation on pull-out and bending stiffness was strongly and negatively correlated to local bone density around the screw (correlation coefficient (R) = -0.95). Conclusion. This combined experimental, µCT and µFE study showed that regional analyses may be sufficient to predict fixation strength in pull-out and that full analyses could show that cement augmentation around pedicle screws increased fixation stiffness in both pull-out and bending, especially for low-density bone. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(12):797–806

Aims. Fixation of osteoporotic proximal humerus fractures remains challenging even with state-of-the-art locking plates. Despite the demonstrated biomechanical benefit of screw tip augmentation with bone cement, the clinical findings have remained unclear, potentially as the optimal augmentation combinations are unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the biomechanical benefits of the augmentation options in a humeral locking plate using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods. A total of 64 cement augmentation configurations were analyzed using six screws of a locking plate to virtually fix unstable three-part fractures in 24 low-density proximal humerus models under three physiological loading cases (4,608 simulations). The biomechanical benefit of augmentation was evaluated through an established FEA methodology using the average peri-screw bone strain as a validated predictor of cyclic cut-out failure. Results. The biomechanical benefit was already significant with a single cemented screw and increased with the number of augmented screws, but the configuration was highly influential. The best two-screw (mean 23%, SD 3% reduction) and the worst four-screw (mean 22%, SD 5%) combinations performed similarly. The largest benefits were achieved with augmenting screws purchasing into the calcar and having posteriorly located tips. Local bone mineral density was not directly related to the improvement. Conclusion. The number and configuration of cemented screws strongly determined how augmentation can alleviate the predicted risk of cut-out failure. Screws purchasing in the calcar and posterior humeral head regions may be prioritized. Although requiring clinical corroborations, these findings may explain the controversial results of previous clinical studies not controlling the choices of screw augmentation

Aims. Plating displaced proximal humeral fractures is associated with a high rate of screw perforation. Dynamization of the proximal screws might prevent these complications. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a new gliding screw concept for plating proximal humeral fractures biomechanically. Methods. Eight pairs of three-part humeral fractures were randomly assigned for pairwise instrumentation using either a prototype gliding plate or a standard PHILOS plate, and four pairs were fixed using the gliding plate with bone cement augmentation of its proximal screws. The specimens were cyclically tested under progressively increasing loading until perforation of a screw. Telescoping of a screw, varus tilting and screw migration were recorded using optical motion tracking. Results. Mean initial stiffness (N/mm) was 581.3 (. sd. 239.7) for the gliding plate, 631.5 (. sd. 160.0) for the PHILOS and 440.2 (. sd. 97.6) for the gliding augmented plate without significant differences between the groups (p = 0.11). Mean varus tilting (°) after 7500 cycles was comparable between the gliding plate (2.6; . sd. 1.9), PHILOS (1.2; . sd. 0.6) and gliding augmented plate (1.7; . sd. 0.9) (p = 0.10). Similarly, mean screw migration(mm) after 7500 cycles was similar between the gliding plate (3.02; . sd. 2.85), PHILOS (1.30; . sd. 0.44) and gliding augmented plate (2.83; . sd. 1.18) (p = 0.13). Mean number of cycles until failure with 5° varus tilting were 12702 (. sd. 3687) for the gliding plate, 13948 (. sd. 1295) for PHILOS and 13189 (. sd. 2647) for the gliding augmented plate without significant differences between the groups (p = 0.66). Conclusion. Biomechanically, plate fixation using a new gliding screw technology did not show considerable advantages in comparison with fixation using a standard PHILOS plate. Based on the finding of telescoping of screws, however, it may represent a valid approach for further investigations into how to avoid the cut-out of screws. Cite this article: Y. P. Acklin, I. Zderic, J. A. Inzana, S. Grechenig, R. Schwyn, R. G. Richards, B. Gueorguiev. Biomechanical evaluation of a new gliding screw concept for the fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:422–429. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.76.BJR-2017-0356.R1

Objectives. Cement augmentation of pedicle screws could be used to improve screw stability, especially in osteoporotic vertebrae. However, little is known concerning the influence of different screw types and amount of cement applied. Therefore, the aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of cement augmentation on the screw pull-out force in osteoporotic vertebrae, comparing different pedicle screws (solid and fenestrated) and cement volumes (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL). Materials and Methods. A total of 54 osteoporotic human cadaver thoracic and lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws (uncemented, solid cemented or fenestrated cemented) and augmented with high-viscosity PMMA cement (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL). The insertion torque and bone mineral density were determined. Radiographs and CT scans were undertaken to evaluate cement distribution and cement leakage. Pull-out testing was performed with a material testing machine to measure failure load and stiffness. The paired t-test was used to compare the two screws within each vertebra. Results. Mean failure load was significantly greater for fenestrated cemented screws (+622 N; p ⩽ 0.001) and solid cemented screws (+460 N; p ⩽ 0.001) than for uncemented screws. There was no significant difference between the solid and fenestrated cemented screws (p = 0.5). In the lower thoracic vertebrae, 1 mL cement was enough to significantly increase failure load, while 3 mL led to further significant improvement in the upper thoracic, lower thoracic and lumbar regions. Conclusion. Conventional, solid pedicle screws augmented with high-viscosity cement provided comparable screw stability in pull-out testing to that of sophisticated and more expensive fenestrated screws. In terms of cement volume, we recommend the use of at least 1 mL in the thoracic and 3 mL in the lumbar spine. Cite this article: C. I. Leichtle, A. Lorenz, S. Rothstock, J. Happel, F. Walter, T. Shiozawa, U. G. Leichtle. Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:419–426