nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.01.2013 | Original Article

Comparison of revision strategies for failed C2-posterior cervical pedicle screws: a biomechanical study

verfasst von: Michael Mayer, Juliane Zenner, Robert Bogner, Wolfgang Hitzl, Markus Figl, Arvind von Keudell, Daniel Stephan, Rainer Penzkofer, Peter Augat, Gundobert Korn, Herbert Resch, Heiko Koller

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Study purpose

With increasing usage within challenging biomechanical constructs, failures of C2 posterior cervical pedicle screws (C2-pCPSs) will occur. The purpose of the study was therefore to investigate the biomechanical characteristics of two revision techniques after the failure of C2-pCPSs.

Materials and methods

Twelve human C2 vertebrae were tested in vitro in a biomechanical study to compare two strategies for revision screws after failure of C2-pCPSs. C2 pedicles were instrumented using unicortical 3.5-mm CPS bilaterally (Synapse/Synthes, Switzerland). Insertion accuracy was verified by fluoroscopy. C2 vertebrae were potted and fixed in an electromechanical testing machine with the screw axis coaxial to the pullout direction. Pullout testing was conducted with load and displacement data taken continuously. The peak load to failure was measured in newtons (N) and is reported as the pullout resistance (POR). After pullout, two revision strategies were tested in each vertebra. In Group-1, revision was performed with 4.0-mm C2-pCPSs. In Group-2, revision was performed with C2-pedicle bone-plastic combined with the use of a 4-mm C2-pCPSs. For the statistical analysis, the POR between screws was compared using absolute values (N) and the POR of the revision techniques normalized to that of the primary procedures (%).

Results

The POR of primary 3.5-mm CPSs was 1,140.5 ± 539.6 N for Group-1 and 1,007.7 ± 362.5 N for Group-2; the difference was not significant. In the revision setting, the POR in Group-1 was 705.8 ± 449.1 N, representing a reduction of 38.1 ± 32.9 % compared with that of primary screw fixation. For Group-2, the POR was 875.3 ± 367.9 N, representing a reduction of 13.1 ± 23.4 %. A statistical analysis showed a significantly higher POR for Group-2 compared with Group-1 (p = 0.02). Although the statistics showed a significantly reduced POR for both revision strategies compared with primary fixation (p < 0.001/p = 0.001), the loss of POR (in %) in Group-1 was significantly higher compared with the loss in Group-2 (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Using a larger-diameter screw combined with the application of a pedicle bone-plastic, the POR can be significantly increased compared with the use of only an increased screw diameter.

Abumi K, Itoh H, Taneichi H, Kaneda K (1994) Transpedicular screw fixation for traumatic lesions of the middle and lower cervical spine: description of the techniques and preliminary report. J Spinal Disord 7(1):19–28PubMedCrossRef

Abumi K, Kaneda K (1997) Pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(16):1853–1863CrossRef

Abumi K, Shono Y, Ito M et al (2000) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(8):962–969CrossRef

Alosh H, Parker SL, McGirt MJ et al (2010) Preoperative radiographic factors and surgeon experience are associated with cortical breach of C2 pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(1):9–14PubMedCrossRef

Cardoso MJ, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson MD et al (2009) Using lamina screws as a salvage technique at C-7: computed tomography and biomechanical analysis using cadaveric vertebrae. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 11(1):28–33PubMedCrossRef

Choueka J, Spivak JM, Kummer FJ, Steger T (1996) Flexion failure of posterior cervical lateral mass screws. Influence of insertion technique and position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(4):462–468CrossRef

Dmitriev AE, Lehman RA Jr, Helgeson MD et al (2009) Acute and long-term stability of atlantoaxial fixation methods: a biomechanical comparison of pars, pedicle, and intralaminar fixation in an intact and odontoid fracture model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(4):365–370CrossRef

Hashemi A, Bednar D, Ziada S (2009) Pullout strength of pedicle screws augmented with particulate calcium phosphate: an experimental study. Spine J 9(5):404–410PubMedCrossRef

Heller JG, Silcox DH III, Sutterlin CE III (1995) Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(22):2442–2448CrossRef

10.

Hirano K, Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y et al (2010) Surgical complications and management of occipitothoracic fusion for cervical destructive lesions in RA patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(2):121–126PubMedCrossRef

11.

Hirano T, Hasegawa K, Takahashi HE et al (1997) Structural characteristics of the pedicle and its role in screw stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(21):2504–2509CrossRef

12.

Holly LT, Foley KT (2006) Percutaneous placement of posterior cervical screws using three-dimensional fluoroscopy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(5):536–540CrossRef

13.

Hong JT, Tomoyuki T, Udayakumar R, Espinoza Orias AA, Inoue N, An HS (2011) Biomechanical comparison of three different types of C7 fixation techniques. Spine 36:393–398. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d345e0

14.

Hostin RA, Wu C, Perra JH et al (2008) A biomechanical evaluation of three revision screw strategies for failed lateral mass fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(22):2415–2421CrossRef

15.

Johnston TL, Karaikovic EE, Lautenschlager EP, Marcu D (2006) Cervical pedicle screws vs. lateral mass screws: uniplanar fatigue analysis and residual pullout strengths. Spine J 6(6):667–672PubMedCrossRef

16.

Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC (1997) Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws. Anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(9):977–982CrossRef

17.

Kamimura M, Ebara S, Itoh H et al (2000) Cervical pedicle screw insertion: assessment of safety and accuracy with computer-assisted image guidance. J Spinal Disord 13(3):218–224PubMedCrossRef

18.

Karaikovic EE, Daubs MD, Madsen RW, Gaines RW Jr (1997) Morphologic characteristics of human cervical pedicles. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(5):493–500CrossRef

19.

Karaikovic EE, Yingsakmongkol W, Gaines RW Jr (2001) Accuracy of cervical pedicle screw placement using the funnel technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(22):2456–2462CrossRef

20.

Kiner DW, Wybo CD, Sterba W et al (2008) Biomechanical analysis of different techniques in revision spinal instrumentation: larger diameter screws versus cement augmentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(24):2618–2622CrossRef

21.

Koller H, Acosta F, Tauber M et al (2008) Cervical anterior transpedicular screw fixation (ATPS)–Part II. Accuracy of manual insertion and pull-out strength of ATPS. Eur Spine J 17(4):539–555PubMedCrossRef

22.

Koller H, Hitzl W, Acosta F et al (2009) In vitro study of accuracy of cervical pedicle screw insertion using an electronic conductivity device (ATPS part III). Eur Spine J 18(9):1300–1313PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kothe R, Ruther W, Schneider E, Linke B (2004) Biomechanical analysis of transpedicular screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1869–1875CrossRef

24.

Lehman RA Jr, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson MD et al (2008) Salvage of C2 pedicle and pars screws using the intralaminar technique: a biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(9):960–965CrossRef

25.

Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Traynelis VC et al (2002) Posterior cervical fixation using a new polyaxial screw and rod system: technique and surgical results. Neurosurg Focus 12(1):E8PubMedCrossRef

26.

Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Kamiya M, Yanase M, Ito K, Machino M, Yoshida G, Ishikawa Y, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N, Kato F (2012) Complications of cervical pedicle screw fixation for nontraumatic lesions: a multicenter study of 84 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 16:238–247. doi:10.3171/2011.11.SPINE11102

27.

Parker SL, McGirt MJ, Garces-Ambrossi GL et al (2009) Translaminar versus pedicle screw fixation of C2: comparison of surgical morbidity and accuracy of 313 consecutive screws. Neurosurgery 64(5 Suppl 2):343–348PubMed

28.

Pfeifer BA, Krag MH, Johnson C (1994) Repair of failed transpedicle screw fixation. A biomechanical study comparing polymethylmethacrylate, milled bone, and matchstick bone reconstruction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(3):350–353CrossRef

29.

Polly DW Jr, Orchowski JR, Ellenbogen RG (1998) Revision pedicle screws. Bigger, longer shims–what is best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(12):1374–1379CrossRef

30.

Rhee JM, Kraiwattanapong C, Hutton WC (2005) A comparison of pedicle and lateral mass screw construct stiffnesses at the cervicothoracic junction: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(21):E636–E640CrossRef

31.

Schmidt R, Koller H, Wilke HJ et al (2010) The impact of cervical pedicle screws for primary stability in multilevel posterior cervical stabilizations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(22):E1167–E1171CrossRef

32.

Schmidt R, Wilke HJ, Claes L, Puhl W, Richter M (2003) Pedicle screws enhance primary stability in multilevel cervical corpectomies: biomechanical in vitro comparison of different implants including constrained and nonconstrained posterior instumentations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(16):1821–1828CrossRef

33.

Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Kim J et al (2003) Biomechanical comparison of cervical spine reconstructive techniques after a multilevel corpectomy of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(20):2352–2358CrossRef

34.

Tomasino A, Parikh K, Koller H et al (2010) The vertebral artery and the cervical pedicle: morphometric analysis of a critical neighborhood. J Neurosurg Spine 13(1):52–60PubMedCrossRef

35.

Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7(2):148–154PubMedCrossRef

36.

Xu R, Nadaud MC, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting RA (1995) Morphology of the second cervical vertebra and the posterior projection of the C2 pedicle axis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(3):259–263CrossRef

37.

Yoshimoto H, Sato S, Hyakumachi T, Yanagibashi Y, Masuda T (2005) Spinal reconstruction using a cervical pedicle screw system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (431):111–119

38.

Yukawa Y, Kato F, Yoshihara H, Yanase M, Ito K (2006) Cervical pedicle screw fixation in 100 cases of unstable cervical injuries: pedicle axis views obtained using fluoroscopy. J Neurosurg Spine 5(6):488–493PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Comparison of revision strategies for failed C2-posterior cervical pedicle screws: a biomechanical study
verfasst von: Michael Mayer
Juliane Zenner
Robert Bogner
Wolfgang Hitzl
Markus Figl
Arvind von Keudell
Daniel Stephan
Rainer Penzkofer
Peter Augat
Gundobert Korn
Herbert Resch
Heiko Koller
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2013
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2461-2

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Knie-TEP: Kein Vorteil durch antibiotikahaltigen Knochenzement

29.05.2024 Periprothetische Infektionen Nachrichten

Zur Zementierung einer Knie-TEP wird in Deutschland zu über 98% Knochenzement verwendet, der mit einem Antibiotikum beladen ist. Ob er wirklich besser ist als Zement ohne Antibiotikum, kann laut Registerdaten bezweifelt werden.

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Comparison of revision strategies for failed C2-posterior cervical pedicle screws: a biomechanical study