SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Dergisi (Eski Adı: Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi Derg.) / 2012 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2

Osteoporotik lomber omurlarda iflas etmiş pedikül vidasının revizyonu: Kifoplasti ile transpediküler polimetilmetakrilat güçlendirme tekniklerinin biyomekanik karşılaştırması

Revision of the failed pedicle screw in osteoporotic lumbar spine: Biomechanical comparison of kyphoplasty versus transpedicular polymethylmethacrylate augmentation

Mehmet TÜRKER
Barış KALAYCIOĞLU
Özgür ÇETİK
Murat ÇINAR
Alihan DERİNÇEK
Pages
106–110
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Conclusion: Although pedicle hole PMMA augmentation is the gold standard for the failed screws in an osteoporotic bone, kyphoplasty augmented pedicle screw seems to be more effective method increasing the pullout strength.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives:In this study, we aimed to compare of kyphoplasty versus transpedicular polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) augmentation biomechanically in the revision of the failed pedicle screw in osteoporotic lumbar spine.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Revision pedicle screws were randomly inserted into the same pedicles by either pedicle hole PMMA augmented (group 1) or kyphoplasty ( Xvoi TM) PMMA augmented pedicle screws (group 2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Although pedicle hole PMMA augmentation is the gold standard for the failed screws in an osteoporotic bone, kyphoplasty augmented pedicle screw seems to be more effective method increasing the pullout strength.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2088 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives:In this study, we aimed to compare of kyphoplasty versus transpedicular polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) augmentation biomechanically in the revision of the failed pedicle screw in osteoporotic lumbar spine. Materials and methods: Bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar vertebrae collected from four bovines were measured. Each vertebra was decalcified with hydrochloric acid solution to obtain osteoporotic specimens. Primary polyaxial pedicle screws were inserted into the pedicles and pulled out until they failed. The pullout strength results of all specimens were recorded. Revision pedicle screws were randomly inserted into the same pedicles by either pedicle hole PMMA augmented (group 1) or kyphoplasty ( Xvoi TM) PMMA augmented pedicle screws (group 2). The pullout strength results of all specimens were re-recorded. Results:The mean BMD significantly decreased from 1.686±227.9 g/cm 2 to 1.432±157.1 g/cm 2 following decalcification (p< 0.0 01). I n g roup 1, t he mea n pullout st rengt h of pr i ma r y screws significantly decreased from 3443±1086 N/m 2 to 2088±924 N/m 2 following pedicle screw augmentation (p=0.006). In group 2, the mean pullout strength of primary screws decreased from 3702±1063 N/m 2 to 3664±1057N/m 2 following kyphoplasty augmentation (p=0.934). Pedicle screw augmentation group achieved significantly lower pullout strength values than kyphoplasty pedicle hole augmentation group (p=0.002). Conclusion: Although pedicle hole PMMA augmentation is the gold standard for the failed screws in an osteoporotic bone, kyphoplasty augmented pedicle screw seems to be more effective method increasing the pullout strength.

Özet

Amaç:Bu çalışmada osteoporotik lomber omurlarda iflas etmiş pedikül vidalarının revizyonunda kifoplasti ile pedikül delik polimetilmetakrilat (PMMA) güçlendirme tekniklerinin biyomekanik karşılaştırması yapıldı. Gereç ve yöntemler: Dört sığırdan elde edilen lomber omurların kemik mineral yoğunlukları (KMY) ölçüldü. Osteoporotik örnekler elde etmek için, her bir omur hidroklorik asit ile dekalsifiye edildi. Primer poliaksiyel pedikül vidaları pediküllere gönderildi ve iflas edene kadar çektirme işlemi yapıldı. Bütün örneklerin sıyrılma dayanıklılığı kaydedildi. Revizyon pedikül vidaları,pedikül delik PMMA (grup 1) veya kifoplasti (Xvoid TM) PMMA(grup 2) güçlendirme tekniklerinden birisi kullanılarak, rastgele aynı deliklere gönderildi. Bütün örneklerin sıyrılma dayanıklılığı yeniden kaydedildi.Bulgular: Dekalsifikasyon sonrasında ortalama KMY 1.686±227.9 g/cm2den 1.432±157.1 g/cm2 ye inerek, anlamlı olarak azaldı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKER, M., KALAYCIOĞLU, B., ÇETİK, Ö., ÇINAR, M., DERİNÇEK, A. (2022). Osteoporotik lomber omurlarda iflas etmiş pedikül vidasının revizyonu: Kifoplasti ile transpediküler polimetilmetakrilat güçlendirme tekniklerinin biyomekanik karşılaştırması. Eklem Hastalıkları ve Cerrahisi Dergisi (Eski Adı: Artroplasti Artroskopik Cerrahi Derg.), Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2, 106–110. https://ajindex.com/articles/498646

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Atik OS. Osteoporotic risk assessment. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2008
  2. Lee SH, Chung BC, Lee, HY, Shin SW. A comparison between interspinous ligamentoplasty, posterior interbody fusion,and posterolateral fusion in the treatment of grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolysthesis. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2005
  3. Burval DJ, McLain RF, Milks R, Inceoglu S. Primary pedicle screw augmentation in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: biomechanical analysis of pedicle fixation strength. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007
  4. Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K. Influence of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation: a study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. Spine J 2001
  5. Derincek A, Wu C, Mehbod A, Transfeldt EE. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006
  6. Chang MC, Liu CL, Chen TH. Polymethylmethacrylate augmentation of pedicle screw for osteoporotic spinal surgery: a novel technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008
  7. E317-24. 7.Lonstein JE, Denis F, Perra JH, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Winter RB. Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1999
  8. Motzkin NE, Chao EY, An KN, Wikenheiser MA, Lewallen DG. Pull-out strength of screws from polymethylmethacrylate cement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1994
  9. Stürup J, Nimb L, Kramhøft M, Jensen JS. Effects of polymerization heat and monomers from acrylic cement on canine bone. Acta Orthop Scand 1994
  10. Lotz JC, Hu SS, Chiu DF, Yu M, Colliou O, Poser RD. Carbonated apatite cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997
  11. Moore DC, Maitra RS, Farjo LA, Graziano GP, Goldstein SA. Restoration of pedicle screw fixation with an in situ setting calcium phosphate cement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997
  12. Polly DW Jr, Orchowski JR, Ellenbogen RG. Revision pedicle screws. Bigger, longer shims-what is best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998
  13. Akbay A, Bozkurt G, Ilgaz O, Palaoglu S, Akalan N, Benzel EC. A demineralized calf vertebra model as an alternative to classic osteoporotic vertebra models for pedicle screw pullout studies. Eur Spine J 2008
  14. Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V. Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation.