Journals / Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery / 2018 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4

DOES THE SAGITTAL ORIENTATION OF THE PEDICLE SCREW AFFECT BIOMECHANICAL STABILITY? A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY

Pages
197–202
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This finding may be useful in clinical practice to prevent late complications of pedicle screw.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: One of the most important steps in obtaining a successful outcome in spine surgery is appropriate placement of the pedicle screw.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material/Method: Three-dimensional FE models of thoracic vertebrae (T10-T11) were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This finding may be useful in clinical practice to prevent late complications of pedicle screw.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Background: One of the most important steps in obtaining a successful outcome in spine surgery is appropriate placement of the pedicle screw. To test the hypothesis that sagittal angle of pedicle screw affects the biomechanical stiffness of the construct used in the spinal surgery, we evaluated the biomechanical results of different directions of pedicle screw on sagittal plane by performing a finite element (FE) analysis both in a single vertebral body and in a dual vertebral model. Material/Method: Three-dimensional FE models of thoracic vertebrae (T10-T11) were used. The vertebral body was divided into three areas (upper, mid, lower one-third) in the sagittal plane. The entry points of the pedicle screw were same. The stiffness of different sagittal orientated screws in single vertebral body were evaluated in pull-out strength and in dual vertebral model strength of the screws were analyzed in flexion, extension and lateral bending movements. Results: The screw at the upper one third of the vertebral body had the strongest pull-out load of 13.200N in single vertebral body model. The screw at the mid one- third of the vertebral body and lower-third of the vertebral body had 12.500N and 10.500N retrospectively. Flexion, extension and lateral bending tests had strongest loadings at upper one-third, mid one-third and lower one-third of vertebral body retrospectively. Conclusion: The pedicle screw at the upper one-third of vertebral body in the sagittal was found to be more biomechanically stronger. This finding may be useful in clinical practice to prevent late complications of pedicle screw.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖKÇEN, H. B. (2018). DOES THE SAGITTAL ORIENTATION OF THE PEDICLE SCREW AFFECT BIOMECHANICAL STABILITY? A FINITE ELEMENT STUDY. Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 4, 197–202. https://ajindex.com/articles/198560

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Belmont PJ, Klemme WR, Dhawan A, Polly DW. In vivo accuracy of thoracic pedicle screws. Spine 2001; 26: 2340-2346. Boucher HH. A method of spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 1959; 41-B: 248-259.
  2. Chao CK, Hsu CC, Wang JL, Lin J. Increasing bending strength and pullout strength in conical pedicle screws: biomechanical tests and finite element analyses. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008; 21: 130-138. Chatzistergos PE,Sapkas G, Kourkoulis SK.The influence of the insertion technique on the pullout force of pedicle screws: an experimental study. Spine 2010; 35: 332-337.
  3. Cho W, Cho SK, Wu C. The biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg 2010; 92: 1061-1065.
  4. Delorme S, Labelle H, Aubin CE, de Guise JA, Rivard CH, Poitras B, Dansereau J. A three dimensional ra- diografphic comparison of Cotrel-Dubousset and Col- orado instrumentation for the correction of idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2000; 25: 205-210.
  5. Dhawan A, Klemme WR, Polly DW Jr. Thoracic pedicle screws: comparison of start points and trajectories. Spine 2008;15; 33(24): 2675-2681.
  6. Di Silvestre M, Parisini P, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G. Complications of thoracic pedicle screws in scoliosis treatment. Spine 2007; 32: 1655-1661.
  7. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ, Kamath G, Peelle MW, Bridwell KH. Selective posterior thoracic fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine 2006; 31: 2400-2404.
  8. Gertzbein SD, S.E. Robbins, Accuracy of pedicular screw placement in vivo. Spine 1990; 15: 11-14.
  9. Gokcen HB, Erdogan S, Ozturk S, Gumussuyu G, Bayram I, Ozturk C. Sagittal orientation and uniform entry for thoracic pedicle screw placement with free- hand technique: A retrospective study on 382 pedicle screws. Int J Surg 2018; 51: 83-88.
  10. Inceoğlu S, Montgomery WH, Clair SS, McLain RF. Pedicle screw insertion angle and pull-out strength: Comparison of 2 proposed strategies. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14: 670-676.
  11. Lehmen RA, Polly DW, Kuklo TR, Cunningham B, Kirk KL, Belmont PJ Jr. Straight-forward versus anatomic trajectory technique of thoracic pedicle screw fixation: a biomechanical analysis. Spine 2003; 28: 2058-2065.
  12. Liljenqvist UR, Halm HF, Link TM. Pedicle screw instrumentation of the thoracic spine in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 1997; 22: 2239-2245. Magerl FB. Stabilization of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine with external skeletal fixation. Clin Orthop 1984; 125-141.
  13. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Hynes RA, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Yoshihara Y, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. Comparison