Reversed windshield-wiper effect leads to failure of cement-augmented pedicle screw: Biomechanical mechanism analysis by finite element experiment

Which technique provides more benefits in return to sports and clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Double-bundle or single-bundle? A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The achievement of an optimal return to sport (RTS) has remained a key goal after sports-related injuries, with the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of different surgical approaches for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. This study aims to assess clinical outcomes and RTS across various surgical methods, such as anatomical single-bundle reconstruction (ASBR), central-axial single-bundle reconstruction (CASBR), and double-bundle reconstruction (DBR).

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted, comprising 191 patients who underwent ACL rupture. These patients were divided into three groups based on the ACL reconstruction techniques they received (ASBR, CASBR, DBR). Over the 2-year follow-up period, the study assessed RTS through four single-hop tests, isokinetic extension tests, and limb asymmetry indices. Postoperative graft status was determined using the signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ), while knee function was evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC-2000) score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and degree of knee laxity. A binary logistic regression model was developed to forecast the factors influencing ideal RTS.

RESULTS

DBR (67.63%) and CASBR (58.00%) exhibited higher RTS passing rates compared to ASBR (30.39%; χ2 = 19.57, P <0.05). Quadriceps strength symmetry in the lower limbs was identified as the key determinant of RTS (χ2 = 17.08, P <0.05). The RTS rate was influenced by SNQs of the graft's tibial site (odds ratio: 0.544) and quadriceps strength of the reconstructed knee joint at 60°/s (odds ratio: 6.346). Notably, the DBR group showed enhanced knee stability, evidenced by superior results in the Lachman test (χ2 = 13.49, P <0.01), objective IKDC-2000 (χ2 = 27.02, P = 0.002), and anterior instability test (χ2 = 9.46, P <0.01). Furthermore, DBR demonstrated superior clinical outcomes based on the Lysholm score (DBR: 89.57 ± 7.72, CASBR: 83.00 ± 12.71, ASBR: 83.21 ± 11.95; F = 10.452, P <0.01) and IKDC-2000 score (DBR: 90.95 ± 7.00, CASBR: 84.64 ± 12.68, ASBR: 83.63 ± 11.41; F = 11.78, P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

For patients with ACL rupture, more ideal RTS rate and clinical outcomes were shown in the DBR group than in the ASBR and CASBR groups. Autograft status and quadriceps strength are postively related to RTS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400460).

Biomechanical Study of 3 Osteoconductive Materials Applied in Pedicle Augmentation and Revision for Osteoporotic Vertebrae: Allograft Bone Particles, Calcium Phosphate Cement, Demineralized Bone Matrix

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed biomechanical properties of pedicle screws enhanced or revised with 3 materials. We aimed to compare the efficacy of these materials in pedicle augmentation and revision.

METHODS

One hundred twenty human cadaveric vertebrae were utilized for in vitro testing. Vertebrae bone density was evaluated. Allograft bone particles (ABP), calcium phosphate cement (CPC), and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) were used to augment or revise pedicle screw. Post the implantation of pedicle screws, parameters such as insertional torque, pullout strength, cycles to failure and failure load were measured using specialized instruments.

RESULTS

ABP, CPC, and DBM significantly enhanced biomechanical properties of the screws. CPC augmentation showed superior properties compared to ABP or DBM. ABP-augmented screws had higher cycles to failure and failure loads than DBM-augmented screws, with no difference in pullout strength. CPC-revised screws exhibited similar strength to the original screws, while ABP-revised screws showed comparable cycles to failure and failure loads but lower pullout strength. DBM-revised screws did not match the original screws' strength.

CONCLUSION

ABP, CPC, and DBM effectively improve pedicle screw stability for pedicle augmentation. CPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, followed by ABP, while DBM was less effective. For pedicle revision, CPC is recommended as the primary choice, with ABP as an alternative. However, using DBM for pedicle revision is not recommended.