Anzeige
Erschienen in:
01.09.2014 | Clinical Research
How Does a Novel Monoplanar Pedicle Screw Perform Biomechanically Relative to Monoaxial and Polyaxial Designs?
Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Ausgabe 9/2014
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Minimally invasive spinal fusions frequently require placement of pedicle screws through small incisions with limited visualization. Polyaxial pedicle screws are favored due to the difficulty of rod insertion with fixed monoaxial screws. Recently, a novel monoplanar screw became available that is mobile in the coronal plane to ease rod insertion but fixed in the sagittal plane to eliminate head slippage during flexion loads; however, the strength of this screw has not been established relative to other available screw designs.
Questions/purposes
We compared the static and dynamic load to failure in polyaxial, monoaxial, and monoplanar pedicle screws.
Methods
Six different manufacturers’ screws (42 total) were tested in three categories (polyaxial, n = 4; monoaxial, n = 1; monopolar, n = 1) utilizing titanium rods. An additional test was performed using cobalt-chromium rods with the monopolar screws only. Screws were embedded into polyethylene blocks and rods were attached using the manufacturers’ specifications. Static and dynamic testing was performed. Dynamic testing began at 80% of static yield strength at 1 Hz for 50,000 cycles.
Results
In static testing, monoaxial and monoplanar screws sustained higher loads than all polyaxial screw designs (range, 37%–425% higher; p < 0.001). The polyaxial screws failed at the head-screw interface, while the monoaxial and monoplanar screws failed by rod breakage in the static test. The dynamic loads to failure were greater with the monoplanar and monoaxial screws than with the polyaxial screws (range, 35%–560% higher; p < 0.001). With dynamic testing, polyaxial screws failed via screw-head slippage between 40% and 95% of static yield strength, while failures in monoaxial and monoplanar screws resulted from either screw shaft or rod breakage.
Conclusions
All polyaxial screws failed at the screw-head interface in static and dynamic testing and at lower values than monoaxial/monoplanar screw designs. Monoplanar and monoaxial screws failed at forces well above expected in vivo values; this was not the case for most polyaxial screws.
Clinical Relevance
Polyaxial screw heads slip on the screw shank at lower values than monoaxial or monoplanar screws, and this results in angular change between the rod and pedicle screw, which could cause loss of segmental lordosis. The novel monoplanar screw used in this study may combine ease of rod placement with sagittal plane strength.