Top

Published in:

01-08-2019 | Original Paper

Analysis of bone cement distribution around fenestrated pedicle screws in low bone quality lumbosacral vertebrae

Authors: Sergio Gómez González, Gerard Cabestany Bastida, Maria Daniela Vlad, José López López, Pablo Buenestado Caballero, Luis Alvarez-Galovich, Maria Rodríguez-Arguisjuela, Enrique Fernández Aguado

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 8/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To study the exact distribution of bone cement around augmented fenestrated pedicle screws in both lumbar and sacral vertebrae of patients with low bone quality.

Methods

A total of 37 patients with instrumented lumbar fusion were investigated. 3D computed tomography virtual models of the injected cement and screws were obtained. The models were computed for their centroid (i.e. their average mass centre point), and their coordinates (x, y, z) were projected on their respective screw-transversal and screw-longitudinal planes for further analysis.

Results

The results showed better bone cement homogeneous distribution around the screws in lumbar (L4 and L5) than in sacral (S1) vertebrae. In the lumbar region, the centroids were transversally projected near the transversal centre of symmetry of the screws. On the other hand, in the sacral region, the cement flowed preferentially outside the centre of symmetry of the screws, into the sacral ala.

Conclusions

The results confirm the different flow behaviours of bone cement in lumbar versus sacra vertebrae. The computer methodology followed in this study helps to understand the clinical monitoring observations and lays the foundations for better positioning of the screws and specific vertebrae-oriented screw designs.

Piñera AR, Duran C, Lopez B et al (2011) Instrumented lumbar arthrodesis in elderly patients: prospective study using cannulated cemented pedicle screw instrumentation. Eur Spine J 20(3):408–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1907-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 37(1):67–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb CrossRefPubMed

Li G, Patil CG, Lad SP et al (2008) Effects of age and comorbidities on complication rates and adverse outcomes after lumbar laminectomy in elderly patients. Spine 33(11):1250–1255. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181714a44 CrossRefPubMed

Raffo CS, Lauerman WC (2006) Predicting morbidity and mortality of lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients in their ninth decade. Spine 31(1):99–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000192678.25586.e5. CrossRefPubMed

Daubs MD, Lenke LG, Cheh G et al (2007) Adult spinal deformity surgery: complications and outcomes in patients over age 60. Spine 32(20):2238–2244. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814cf24a CrossRefPubMed

Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation: a selected survey of ABS members. Spine 18(15):2231–2239CrossRef

Polly DW, Orchowski JR, Ellenbogen RG (1998) Revision pedicle screws. Bigger, longer shims—what is best? Spine 23(12):1374–1379CrossRef

von Strempel A, Kühle J, Plitz W (1994) Stability of pedicle screws. 2: maximum pullout force with reference to bone density. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 132(1):82–86CrossRef

Wang W, Baran GR, Garg H et al (2014) The benefits of cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation are increased in osteoporotic bone: a finite element analysis. Spine Deform 2(4):248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.03.002 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Wittenberg RH, Lee KS, Shea M et al (1993) Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. Clin Orthop Relat Res 296(296):278–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199311000-00045 CrossRef

11.

Pfeifer BA, Krag MH, Johnson C (1994) Repair of failed transpedicle screw fixation: a biomechanical study comparing polymethylmethacrylate, milled bone, and matchstick bone reconstruction. Spine 19(3):350–353CrossRef

12.

Tan JS, Kwon BK, Dvorak MF et al (2004) Pedicle screw motion in the osteoporotic spine after augmentation with laminar hooks, sublaminar wires, or calcium phosphate cement: a comparative analysis. Spine 29(16):1723–1730. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000134569.63542.49 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Renner SM, Lim TH, Kim WJ et al (2004) Augmentation of pedicle screw fixation strength using an injectable calcium phosphate cement as a function of injection timing and method. Spine 29(11):E212–E216CrossRef

14.

Yi X, Wang Y, Lu H, Li C, Zhu T (2008) Augmentation of pedicle screw fixation strength using an injectable calcium sulphate cement: an in vivo study. Spine 33(23):2503–2509. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318184e750 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Liu D, Wu ZX, Pan XM et al (2011) Biomechanical comparison of different techniques in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: expansive pedicle screw versus polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(9):1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1290-9. CrossRefPubMed

16.

Chang MC, Liu CL, Chen TH (2008) Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of pedicle screw for osteoporotic spinal surgery: a novel technique. Spine 33(10):E317–E324. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816f6c73 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Choma TJ, Pfeiffer FM, Swope RW, Hirner JP (2012) Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine 37(26):E1628–E1632. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182740e56 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Liebschner MAK, Rosenberg WS, Keaveny TM (2001) Effects of bone cement volume and distribution on vertebral stiffness after vertebroplasty. Spine 26(14):1547–1554. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200107150-00009 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Elder BD, Lo SF, Holmes C et al (2015) The biomechanics of pedicle screw augmentation with cement. Spine J 15(6):1432–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.016 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Blattert TR, Glasmacher S, Riesner HJ, Josten C (2009) Revision characteristics of cement-augmented, cannulated-fenestrated pedicle screws in the osteoporotic vertebral body: a biomechanical in vitro investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 11(1):23–27. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.3.SPINE08625 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW (2002) Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmentation in osteoporotic spines. J Neurosurg 96(3):309–312

22.

Wilkes RA, Mackinnon JG, Thomas WG (1994) Neurological deterioration after cement injection into a vertebral body. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(1):155CrossRef

23.

Garg MK, Kharb S (2013) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 17(2):203–210. https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-8210.109659 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH et al (1986) A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203:99–112

25.

Martín-Fernández M, López-Herradón A, Piñera AR et al (2017) Potential risks of using cement-augmented screws for spinal fusion in patients with low bone quality. Spine J 17(8):1192–1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.029 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ebraheim N, Sabry FF, Nadim Y, Xu R, Yeasting RA (2000) Internal architecture of the sacrum in the elderly: an anatomic and radiographic study. Spine 25(3):292–297CrossRef

Title: Analysis of bone cement distribution around fenestrated pedicle screws in low bone quality lumbosacral vertebrae
Authors: Sergio Gómez González
Gerard Cabestany Bastida
Maria Daniela Vlad
José López López
Pablo Buenestado Caballero
Luis Alvarez-Galovich
Maria Rodríguez-Arguisjuela
Enrique Fernández Aguado
Publication date: 01-08-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4115-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Analysis of bone cement distribution around fenestrated pedicle screws in low bone quality lumbosacral vertebrae

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Analysis of failures after the Bristow-Latarjet procedure for recurrent shoulder instability

Response to letter to the editor concerning “Orthopaedic surgery patients who use recreational marijuana have less pre-operative pain”

Fibular donor site following non vascularized harvest: clinico-radiological outcome at minimal five year follow-up

Screening program for neonates at risk for developmental dysplasia of the hip: comparing first radiographic evaluation at five months with the standard twelve week ultrasound. A prospective cross-sectional cohort study

Standards for external fixation application: national survey under the auspices of the German Trauma Society

Pelvic pitch and roll during total hip arthroplasty performed through a posterolateral approach. A potential source of error in free-hand cup positioning