Mechanical and Geometric Analysis of Fenestration Design for Polymethylmethacrylate-Augmented Pedicle Screw Fixation.

BACKGROUND: The practice of cement augmentation in pedicle screw fixation is well established. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal screw design or cement type. This remains a clinically important question given the incidence of cement augmentation-associated complications. While fenestrated screws have become widely used in clinical practice, the relationship between fenestration placement along the screw axis and cement plume geometry and pullout strength have yet to be clarified. This study was designed to evaluate the mechanical and geometric properties of different fenestrated screw designs and cement viscosities in pedicle screw fixation. METHODS: Three different screw fenestration configurations and 2 different cement viscosities were examined in this study. Axial pullout tests were conducted in both foam blocks and cadaveric vertebrae. All vertebral specimens underwent tests of bone mineral density. In the foam blocks, 6 tests were conducted for each augmentation combination and also for nonaugmented controls. In the cadaveric testing, 36 lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with a cemented and uncemented control screw to compare features of fixation. Computed tomography (CT) images were taken to assess the geometric profile of the cement plumes in both the foam blocks and the cadaveric vertebrae. RESULTS: In both foam blocks and vertebral specimens, cementation was shown to confer a significant increase in pullout strength. Significant correlations existed between the anterior-posterior and lateral cement plume diameters and pullout strength in cadaveric vertebra and foam blocks, respectively. Within instrumented vertebra, variables such as the width of the vertebral body and screw insertion were found to significantly correlate with enhanced fixation. CT analysis of the instrumented vertebra demonstrated that a centrally distributed pattern of fenestrations was found to result in a cement plume with consistently predictable distribution within the vertebral body, without evidence of leak. CONCLUSION: Cementation of fenestrated pedicle screws increases overall pullout forces; however, there is an unclear relationship between the geometric properties of the cement plume and the overall strength of the screw-bone interface. This study demonstrates that the plume diameter, vertebral body width, and angle of screw insertion are correlated with enhanced pullout strength. Furthermore, varying the fenestration design of injectable screws resulted in a set of predictable plume patterns, which may be associated with fewer complications. Further investigation is required to clarify the optimal geometric and biomechanical properties of injectable pedicle screws and their role in establishing the cement-bone interface. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study is relevant to currently practicing spinal surgeons and biomechanical engineers.

Different anterolateral procedures have variable impact on knee kinematics and stability when performed in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal anterolateral procedure to control anterolateral rotational laxity of the knee is still unknown. The objective was to compare the ability of five anterolateral procedures performed in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to restore native knee kinematics in the setting of a deficient anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral structures. METHODS: A controlled laboratory study was performed using 10 fresh-frozen cadaveric whole lower limbs with intact iliotibial band. Kinematics from 0° to 90° of flexion were recorded using a motion analysis three-dimensional (3D) optoelectronic system, allowing assessment of internal rotation (IR) and anteroposterior (AP) tibial translation at 30° and 90° of flexion. Joint centres and bony landmarks were calculated from 3D bone models obtained from CT scans. Intact knee kinematics were assessed initially, followed by sequential section of the ACL and anterolateral structures (anterolateral ligament, anterolateral capsule and Kaplan fibres). After ACLR, five anterolateral procedures were performed consecutively on the same knee: ALLR, modified Ellison, deep Lemaire, superficial Lemaire and modified MacIntosh. The last three procedures were randomised. For each procedure, the graft was fixed in neutral rotation at 30° of flexion and with a tension of 20 N. RESULTS: Isolated ACLR did not restore normal overall knee kinematics in a combined ACL plus anterolateral-deficient knee, leaving a residual tibial rotational laxity (p=0.034). Only the ALLR (p=0.661) and modified Ellison procedure (p=0.641) restored overall IR kinematics to the normal intact state. Superficial and deep Lemaire and modified MacIntosh tenodeses overconstrained IR, leading to shifted and different kinematics compared with the intact condition (p=0.004, p=0.001 and p=0.045, respectively). Compared with ACLR state, addition of an anterolateral procedure did not induce any additional control on AP translation at 30° and 90° of flexion (all p>0.05), except for the superficial Lemaire procedure at 90° (p=0.032). CONCLUSION: In biomechanical in vitro setting, a comparison of five anterolateral procedures revealed that addition of either ALLR or modified Ellison procedure restored overall native knee kinematics in a combined ACL plus anterolateral-deficient knee. Superficial and deep Lemaire and modified MacIntosh tenodeses achieved excellent rotational control but overconstrained IR, leading to a change from intact knee kinematics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The level-of-evidence statement does not apply for this laboratory experiments study.

Pullout force of minimally invasive surgical and open pedicle screws-a biomechanical cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND: To assess whether lumbar pedicle screw placement with a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) vs. open technique imparts different biomechanical parameters and thus may affect failure rates. METHODS: Human cadaveric disarticulated lumbar vertebrae 1-5 were stabilised in cement. Pedicle screws were inserted either via the 'MIS' or 'open' technique, based on previously described anatomical landmarks. Each vertebra had one 'MIS' and one 'open' technique screw. Specimens were tested with an Instron mechanical testing machine, positioned to allow for testing of direct coaxial force. Load was applied until failure occurred, and load-displacement curves generated for each screw. RESULTS: Average failure load was found to be 685±399 N for MIS, versus 661±323 N for open technique (P=0.75). The average ultimate failure load was 748±421 N for MIS, versus 772±326 N for open (P=0.74). Average displacement until failure was 0.95±0.49 mm for MIS as compared to 0.95±0.62 mm for open (P=0.996). Axial stiffness was 936±217 N/mm for MIS and 1,016±263 N/mm for open (P=0.19). Average work required to result in failure was 0.84±1.09 J for MIS and 0.82±1.05 J for open (P=0.94). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the biomechanical properties of the MIS as compared with open lumbar pedicle screws, when tested until failure under direct coaxial force. The clinical implication may be that there is no significant advantage in the biomechanical properties of MIS versus open lumbar pedicle screw insertion techniques.

The importance of loading the periphery of the vertebral endplate.

BACKGROUND: Commercial fusion cages typically provide support in the central region of the endplate, failing to utilize the increased compressive strength around the periphery. This study demonstrates the increase in compressive strength that can be achieved if the bony periphery of the endplate is loaded. METHODS: Sixteen cadaveric lumbar vertebrae (L1-L5) were randomly divided into two even groups. A different commercial mass produced implant (MPI) was allocated to each group: (I) a Polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) anterior lumber inter-body fusion (ALIF) MPI; and (II) a titanium ALIF MPI. Uniaxial compression at a displacement rate of 0.5 mm/sec was applied to all vertebrae during two phases: (I) with the allocated MPI situated in the central region of the endplate; (II) with an aluminum plate, designed to load the bony periphery of the endplate. The failure load and mode of failure was recorded. RESULTS: From phase 1 to phase 2, the failure load increased from 1.1±0.4 to 2.9±1.4 kN for group 1; and from 1.3±1.0 to 3.0±1.9 kN for group 2. The increase in strength from phase 1 to phase 2 was statistically significant for each group (group 1: P<0.01, group 2: P<0.05, paired t-test). There was no significant difference between the groups in either phase (P>0.05, t-test). The mode of failure in phase 1 was the implant being forced through the endplate for both groups. In phase 2, the mode of failure was either a fracture of the epiphyseal rim or buckling of the side wall of the vertebral body. CONCLUSIONS: Loading the periphery of the vertebral endplate achieved significant increase in compressive load capacity compared to loading the central region of the endplate. Clinically, this implies that patient-specific implants which load the periphery of the vertebral endplate could decrease the incidence of subsidence and improve surgical outcomes.