Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Hypothesis

Introducing the “Bone-Screw-Fastener” for improved screw fixation in orthopedic surgery: a revolutionary paradigm shift?

Authors: Philip F. Stahel, Nicholas A. Alfonso, Corey Henderson, Todd Baldini

Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Conventional screws used for fracture fixation in orthopedic surgery continue to rely on the historic buttress thread design. While buttress screws generally provide solid resistance against unidirectional axial loading forces, their design suffers from several limitations, as the buttress thread does not adequately resist multiaxial forces. Furthermore, the buttress screw is prone to stripping at the bone-screw interface and can cause microfracturing of the surrounding bone due to its thread design. Standard buttress screws are therefore at risk of adverse postoperative outcomes secondary to failure of bone fixation. A new patented Bone-Screw-Fastener was recently designed that is based on an interlocking thread technology. This new fastener provides distributive forces from the threads onto the bone and therefore resists loads in multiple directions. The underlying concept is represented by a “female thread” bone cutting technology designed to maximize bone volume, preserve bone architecture, and create a circumferential interlocking interface between the implant and bone that protects the thread from stripping and from failing to multiaxial forces.

Presentation of the hypothesis

We hypothesize that the new Bone-Screw-Fastener overcomes the classic shortcomings of conventional orthopedic screws with buttress threads by ease of insertion, improved bone preservation, increased resistance to off-axis multidirectional loading forces and to stripping of the threads. These advanced biomechanical and biological properties can potentially mitigate the classic limitations of conventional buttress screws by providing better resistance to implant failure under physiological loads, preserving bone biology, and thus potentially improving patient outcomes in the future.

Testing the hypothesis

The presumed superiority of the new fastener will require testing and validation in well-designed prospective multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using the conventional buttress screw as control.

Implications of the hypothesis

Once validated in multicenter RCTs, the new Bone-Screw-Fastener may drive a change in paradigm with regard to its innovative biomechanical principles and biologic bone preservation for surgical applications requiring screw fixation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dalley S, Oleson JP. Sennacherib, Archimedes, and the water screw: the context of invention in the ancient world. Technol Cult. 2003;44:1–26.CrossRef Dalley S, Oleson JP. Sennacherib, Archimedes, and the water screw: the context of invention in the ancient world. Technol Cult. 2003;44:1–26.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Rybczynski W. One good turn: a natural history of the screwdriver and the screw. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2000. Rybczynski W. One good turn: a natural history of the screwdriver and the screw. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2000.
4.
go back to reference Venable CS, Stuck WG. The internal fixation of fractures. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas; 1947. Venable CS, Stuck WG. The internal fixation of fractures. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas; 1947.
5.
go back to reference Schlich T. Surgery, science and industry: a revolution in fracture care, 1950s-1990s. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan; 2002.CrossRef Schlich T. Surgery, science and industry: a revolution in fracture care, 1950s-1990s. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan; 2002.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Roberts TT, Prummer CM, Papliodis DN, Uhl RL, Wagner TA. History of the orthopedic screw. Orthopedics. 2013;36(1):12–4.CrossRefPubMed Roberts TT, Prummer CM, Papliodis DN, Uhl RL, Wagner TA. History of the orthopedic screw. Orthopedics. 2013;36(1):12–4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
go back to reference Abuhussein H, Pagni G, Rebaudi A, Wang HL. The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(2):129–36.CrossRefPubMed Abuhussein H, Pagni G, Rebaudi A, Wang HL. The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(2):129–36.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wang T, Boone C, Behn AW, Ledesma JB, Bishop JA. Cancellous screws are biomechanically superior to cortical screws in metaphyseal bone. Orthopedics. 2016;39(5):e828–32.CrossRefPubMed Wang T, Boone C, Behn AW, Ledesma JB, Bishop JA. Cancellous screws are biomechanically superior to cortical screws in metaphyseal bone. Orthopedics. 2016;39(5):e828–32.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Ryu HS, Namgung C, Lee JH, Lim YJ. The influence of thread geometry on implant osseointegration under immediate loading: a literature review. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(6):547–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ryu HS, Namgung C, Lee JH, Lim YJ. The influence of thread geometry on implant osseointegration under immediate loading: a literature review. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(6):547–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Mosavar A, Ziaei A, Kadkhodaei M. The effect of implant thread design on stress distribution in anisotropic bone with different osseontegration conditions: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1317–26.CrossRefPubMed Mosavar A, Ziaei A, Kadkhodaei M. The effect of implant thread design on stress distribution in anisotropic bone with different osseontegration conditions: a finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(6):1317–26.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Eraslan O, Inan O. The effect of thread design on stress distribution in a solid screw implant: a 3D finite element analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):411–6.CrossRefPubMed Eraslan O, Inan O. The effect of thread design on stress distribution in a solid screw implant: a 3D finite element analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):411–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Archdeacon MT, Anglen JO, Ostrum RF, Herscovici Jr D. Prevention and management of common fracture complications. Thorofare: Slack Inc; 2012. Archdeacon MT, Anglen JO, Ostrum RF, Herscovici Jr D. Prevention and management of common fracture complications. Thorofare: Slack Inc; 2012.
14.
go back to reference Smith WR, Ziran BH, Anglen JO, Stahel PF. Locking plates: tips and tricks. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:25–36.PubMed Smith WR, Ziran BH, Anglen JO, Stahel PF. Locking plates: tips and tricks. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:25–36.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Peterson LT. Fixation of bones by plates and screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1947;29(2):335–47.PubMed Peterson LT. Fixation of bones by plates and screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1947;29(2):335–47.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Stahel PF, Mauffrey C. Evidence-based medicine: a ‘hidden threat’ for patient safety and surgical innovation? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:997–9.CrossRefPubMed Stahel PF, Mauffrey C. Evidence-based medicine: a ‘hidden threat’ for patient safety and surgical innovation? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:997–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Introducing the “Bone-Screw-Fastener” for improved screw fixation in orthopedic surgery: a revolutionary paradigm shift?
Authors
Philip F. Stahel
Nicholas A. Alfonso
Corey Henderson
Todd Baldini
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1754-9493
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-017-0121-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2017 Go to the issue