RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Fixation of sustentaculum tali fractures is important to maintain the biomechanical function of the subtalar joint. A common method of fixation is securing the sustentacular fragment by way of a laterally based locking plate (LP). A medial approach with a single screw (MS) has been proposed as an alternative method of fixation. METHODS: Five pairs of formalin-preserved cadaveric ankles with the subtalar joint and interosseous ligaments intact ("osseous cadavers") and four pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric ankles with soft-tissue preserved dissected from mid-tibia down ("soft tissue cadavers") were used in the study. The left ankle was randomly assigned to one of the two fixation methods (LP or MS), while the right ankle was the opposite. These same steps for fixation were repeated for six synthetic ankle models. All models were loaded with a body mass of 80 kg. Statistical differences between LP and MS stiffness were determined using a paired t-test in cadavers and un-paired t-tests in synthetic ankles. RESULTS: For osseous cadaveric ankles, LP demonstrated a mean stiffness of 232.95(SD: 59.96) N/mm, while MS was 239.72(SD:131.09) N/mm (p = 0.9293). For soft tissue cadaveric ankles, LP mean stiffness was 133.58(SD:37.84) N/mm, while MS was 134.88(SD:20.75) N/mm (p = 0.9578). For synthetic ankles, LP mean stiffness was 220.40(SD:81.93) N/mm, while MS was 261.50(SD:100.21) N/mm (p = 0.6116). CONCLUSIONS: Across all three models, there was no significant difference between LP and MS methods. Retrospective observational studies are recommended to assess patient outcomes from each of the methods.
RESUMEN
This literature review aimed to review the current understanding, indications, and limitations of pedicle screw instrumentation cement augmentation. Since they were first reported in the 1980s, pedicle screw cement augmentation rates have been increasing. Several studies have been published to date that describe various surgical techniques and the biomechanical changes that occur when cement is introduced through the screw-bone interface. This article provides a concise review of the uses, biomechanical properties, cost analysis, complications, and surgical techniques used for pedicle screw cement augmentation to help guide physician practices. A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted, with key studies, and contributions from throughout history being highlighted. Patients with low bone mineral density are the most well-studied indication for pedicle screw cement augmentation. Many studies show that cement augmentation can improve pullout strength in patients with low bone mineral density; however, the benefit varies inversely with pathology severity and directly with technique. The various screw types are discussed, with each having its own mechanical advantages. Cement distribution is largely dependent on the filling method and volume of cement used. Cement composition and timing of cement use after mixing are critical considerations in practice because they can significantly alter the bone-cement and screw-cement interfaces. Overall, studies have shown that pedicle screw cement augmentation has a low complication rate and increased pullout strength, justifying its universal use in patients with a suboptimal bone-implant interface.
