Strategy for salvage pedicle screw placement: A technical note

Pullout strength of different pedicle screws after primary and revision insertion: an in vitro study on polyurethane foam

BACKGROUND

Surgeons are routinely required to remove loose or failed pedicle screws and insert a new screw in their place. However, inserting a new screw into an existing hole may compromise the holding capacity of the pedicle screw. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the pullout strength of pedicle screws with different thread designs after the primary insertion and revision surgery in a synthetic bone model.

METHODS

Four pedicle screws with different thread designs (single-lead-thread (SLT) screw, dual-lead-thread (DLT) screw, mixed-single-lead-thread (MSLT) screw, and proximal-unthreaded-dual-thread (PUDL) screw) were inserted into pre-drilled, untapped holes (ø 4.2 mm, length 35 mm) in Sawbone blocks of density 20 pcf. In the first sequence, a 6.0 mm screw was inserted into the predrilled foam block and the primary pullout strength of the screw was measured according to ASTM F543. In the second sequence, a 6.0 mm screw was inserted and removed, and then either a 6.5 mm screw of the same design or a different screw design was inserted into the same hole and the pullout strength recorded.

RESULTS

In the first sequence, the mean pullout strength of the MSLT screw was significantly (p < 0.05) greater than all other screw designs. In the second sequence, when the MSLT screw was the primary screw, using a larger MSLT screw (6.5 mm) as the revision screw did not lead to a higher pullout strength than if a 6.0 mm diameter PUDL screw was used for the revision. Using a larger DLT screw (6.5 mm) as the revision screw resulted in a significantly (p < 0.05) greater pullout strength than a 6.0 mm STL, DLT, MSLT, or PUDL screw.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that employing classic oversizing of the same screw design is a safe choice for maintaining screw purchase in the bone after revision. In cases where oversizing with the same screw design is not practical, opting for a PUDL screw with the same original diameter can provide enough purchase in the bone to maintain stability.

When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review

Intoduction

Mechanical complications from spinal fusion including implant loosening or junctional failure result in poor outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. While the use of percutaneous vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been studied for augmentation of junctional levels to offset against kyphosis and failure, its deployment around existing loose screws or in failing surrounding bone as a salvage percutaneous procedure has been described in small case series and merits review.

Research Question

How effective and safe is the use of PMMA as a salvage procedure for mechanical complications in failed spinal fusion?.

Materials and Methods

Systematic search of online databases for clinical studies using this technique.

Results

11 studies were identified, only consisting of two case reports and nine case series. Consistent improvements were observed in pre- to post-operative VAS and with sustained improvements at final follow-up. The extra- or para-pedicular approach was the most frequent access trajectory. Most studies cited difficulties with visibility on fluoroscopy, using navigation or oblique views as a solution for this.

Discussion and Conclusions

Percutaneous cementation at a failing screw-bone interface stabilises further micromotion with reductions in back pain. This rarely used technique is manifested by a low but increasing number of reported cases. The technique warrants further evaluation and is best performed within a multidisciplinary setting at a specialist centre. Notwithstanding that underlying pathology may not be addressed, awareness of this technique may allow an effective and safe salvage solution with minimal morbidity for older sicker patients.

Reinforcement of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Hydroxyapatite Granules in Patients with Osteoporotic Spine: Biomechanical Performance and Clinical Outcomes

In percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation of the osteoporotic spine, rigid screw fixation obtaining strong stabilization is important for achieving successful treatment outcomes. However, in patients with severe osteoporosis, it is difficult to obtain PPS fixation with sufficient stability. PPS fixation has potential disadvantages with respect to maintaining secure stabilization in comparison to conventional pedicle screw fixation. In PPS fixation, bone grafting to achieve posterior spine fusion is generally not applicable and transverse connectors between the rods cannot be used to reinforce the fixation. Various augmentation methods, including additional hooks, sublaminar bands, and hydroxyapatite (HA) sticks, are available for conventional pedicle screw fixation. On the other hand, there has been no established augmentation method for PPS fixation. Recently, we developed a novel augmentation technique for PPS fixation using HA granules. This technique allows the percutaneous insertion of HA granules into the screw hole along the guidewire prior to insertion of the PPS. We have used this augmentation technique for PPS fixation in various spine surgeries in patients with osteoporosis. In our previous studies, biomechanical analyses demonstrated that PPS fixation was significantly enhanced by augmentation with HA granules in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. Furthermore, augmentation with HA granules was considered to decrease the incidence of screw loosening and implant failure following PPS fixation in patients with osteoporotic spine. In this article, we describe the surgical procedures of the augmentation method using HA granules and summarize our data from the biomechanical analysis of augmentation for PPS fixation. We also review the surgical outcomes of PPS fixation with augmentation using HA granules.

Dual pitch screw design provides equivalent fixation to upsized screw diameter in revision pedicle screw instrumentation: a cadaveric biomechanical study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There are situations that require the replacement of pedicle screws. They are often exchanged when loose or broken or to accommodate a different sized rod or pedicle screw system. Traditionally, pedicle screws are replaced by up-sizing the core diameter until an interference fit is obtained. However, this method carries a risk of pedicle screw breach.

PURPOSE

To determine if dual pitch screws, with cancellous pitch in the vertebral body and cortical pitch throughout the pedicle, allows for in-line screw revision without upsizing screw diameter.

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric biomechanical Study PATIENT SAMPLE: Not applicable OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable METHODS: Pedicle screws were tested in the lumbar vertebrae from eleven cadavers. Standard pitch 5.5 mm screws were inserted and loaded using a "break-in" protocol. Screws were removed and replaced with one of four screw types: 5.5 mm Standard Pitch, 5.5 mm Dual Pitch, 6.0 mm Standard Pitch, or 6.0 mm Dual Pitch. Failure testing was done using a stepwise increasing cyclic loading protocol for 100 cycles at each increasing load level. The loading consisted of a combined axial and bending load simulating the load seen by the most inferior screw.

RESULTS

Failure was consistent, with the tip of the screw displacing inferiorly into the vertebral body while simultaneously pulling out. Failure strength was lowest in the 5.5mm Standard (135.8±29.4N) followed by 6.0mm Standard (141.8±38.6N), 5.5mm Dual (158.1±53.8N), and 6.0mm Dual (173.6±52.1N, p=.023). There was no difference in the failure strength between the 5.5mm Dual and 6.0mm Standard. Lumbar level (p=.701) and donor spine (p=.062) were not associated with failure strength.

CONCLUSIONS

After pedicle screw removal, screws with a larger core diameter or with a dual pitch have similar failure strengths. Dual pitch screws may allow for in-line revision of screws without upsizing screw diameter, minimizing the risk of pedicle breach or fracture.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dual pitch screws, with cancellous pitch in the vertebral body and cortical pitch through the pedicle, allows for in-line revision of pedicle screws without upsizing screw diameter; reducing the risk of pedicle breach or fracture when exchanging screws.

Effect of surgical factors on the augmentation of cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw fixation by a novel calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite

Bone cement-augmented pedicle screw system demonstrates great efficacy in spinal disease treatments. However, the intrinsic drawbacks associated with clinically used polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement demands for new bone cement formulations. On the basis of our previous studies, a novel injectable and biodegradable calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite (CPN) for the augmentation of pedicle screw fixation was systematically evaluated for its surgical feasibility and biomechanical performance by simulated and animal osteoporotic bone models, and the results were compared with those of clinical PMMA cement. ASTM-standard solid foam and open-cell foam models and decalcified sheep vertebra models were employed to evaluate the augmentation effects of CPN on bone tissue and on the cement-injected cannulated pedicle screws (CICPs) placed in osteoporotic bone. Surgical factors in CICPs application, such as injection force, tapping technique, screw diameter, and pedicle screw loosening scenarios, were studied in comparison with those in PMMA. When directly injected to the solid foam model, CPN revealed an identical augmentation effect to that of PMMA, as shown by the similar compressive strengths (0.73 ± 0.04 MPa for CPN group vs. 0.79 ± 0.02 MPa for PMMA group). The average injection force of CPN at approximately 40-50 N was higher than that of PMMA at approximately 20 N. Although both values are acceptable to surgeons, CPN revealed a more consistent injection force pattern than did PMMA. The dispersing and anti-pullout ability of CPN were not affected by the surgical factors of tapping technique and screw diameter. The axial pullout strength of CPN evaluated by the decalcified sheep vertebra model revealed a similar augmentation level as that of PMMA (1351.6 ± 324.2 N for CPN vs. 1459.7 ± 304.4 N for PMMA). The promising results of CPN clearly suggest its potential for replacing PMMA in CICPs augmentation application and the benefits of further study and development for clinical uses.

Technical Note: Pedicle Cement Augmentation with Proximal Screw Toggle and Loosening

Background

Cement augmentation is a technique used to increase the stability and purchase of pedicle screws in poor quality bone. Various methods can be applied for cement delivery, such as cement injection before screw placement and the use of fenestrated screws. However, potential problems can arise with the use of cement augmentation.

Case Presentation

A 66‐year‐old man with a lower trunk deformity, severe kyphosis, and sagittal imbalance following fusion (L_2‐5), with minimal comorbidities, was referred to our unit 9 months after surgery. Pain and progressive kyphosis were investigated clinically and radiographically with computed tomography (CT) scans to assess the status of the hardware and fusion. CT imaging revealed that cement was present only at the distal tip of the fenestrated screws at the L4 vertebral level. A non‐union was present along with loosening and a halo around the body of the pedicle screws, and there was evidence of pullout of inferior screws.

Conclusion

Single‐level cement augmentation of pedicle screw in a posterior construct and distal tip cement augmentation of the screw results in a fixed pivot point. Micromotion in cranio‐caudal loading during flexion and extension may result in screw toggling with the single‐level cement‐augmented tip as a fulcrum. This may cause screw loosening, which can lead to pullout and loss of construct stability. The halo around the screw suggests bone loss and/or a fibrous tissue interface, which further complicates revision surgery. Stress shielding and polymethylmethacrylate cement present additional difficulties.

The findings of this technical note question the risks and benefits of cement‐augmented fenestrated pedicle screw fixation for spinal fusion. Although incidences of such cases are uncommon, surgeons should perform this technique with caution. Accurate restoration of lumbar lordosis during index procedures is important to minimize the risk of construct failure.

Salvage Strategy for Failed Spinal Fusion Surgery Using Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion technique: A Technical Note

INTRODUCTION

Failed spinal fusion surgery sometimes requires salvage surgery when symptomatic, especially with postsurgical decrease in intervertebral disc height followed by foraminal stenosis. For such cases, an anterior approach to lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) provides safe, direct access to the pathological disc space and a potential improvement in the fusion rate. One LLIF approach, oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), targets the oblique lateral window of the intervertebral discs to achieve successful lateral interbody fusion. The current technical note describes spinal revision surgery using the OLIF procedure.

TECHNICAL NOTE

The subjects were patients with leg pain and/or lower back pain derived from decreased intervertebral height followed by foraminal stenosis due to failed spinal fusion surgery. These patients underwent additional OLIF surgery and posterior fusion with no additional posterior direct decompression. Their outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at baseline and final follow-up. Bony union was also evaluated using computed tomography images at final follow-up. Six subjects were evaluated, with two representative cases described in detail. Four patients had an adjacent segment disorder, and the other two patients had pseudarthrosis due to postoperative infection. The mean JOA score improved from 5.7 ± 5.4 to 21.2 ± 2.3, with a mean recovery rate of 65.0%. All cases showed intervertebral bony union.

CONCLUSIONS

We introduced a salvage strategy for failed posterior spine fusion surgery cases using the OLIF procedure. Patients effectively achieved recovered intervertebral and foraminal height with no additional posterior direct decompression.

Influence of Hydroxyapatite Stick on Pedicle Screw Fixation in Degenerative Lumbar Spine: Biomechanical and Radiologic Study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, within-patient, left-right comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of hydroxyapatite (HA) stick augmentation method by comparing the insertional torque of the pedicle screw in osteoporotic and nonosteoporotic patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Unsatisfactory clinical outcomes after spine surgery in osteoporotic patients are related to pedicle screw loosening or pull-outs. HA, as a bone graft extender, has a possibility to enhance the fixation strength at the bone-screw interface.

METHODS

From November 2009 to December 2010, among patients who required bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar spine surgery, 22 patients were enrolled, who recieved unilateral HA stick augmentation and completed intraoperative insertional torque measurement of each pedicle screws. On the basis of preoperative evaluation of bone mineral density, patients with osteoporosis had 2 HA sticks inserted unilaterally, and 1 stick for patients without osteoporosis. Pedicle screw loosening and pull-outs were assessed using 12-month postoperative CT scans and follow-up radiographs. Clinical evaluation was done preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively, based on Visual Analog Scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Short Form-36 Health Survey.

RESULTS

Regardless of bone mineral density, the average torque value of all pedicle screws with HA stick insertion (HA stick inserted group) was significantly higher than that of all pedicle screws without HA insertion (control group) (P<0.0001). Same results were seen in the HA stick inserted subgroups and the control subgroups within both of the osteoporosis group (P=0.009) and the nonosteoporosis group (P=0.0004). There was no statistically significant difference of the rate of pedicle screw loosening in between the HA stick inserted group and the control group. Clinical evaluation also showed no statistically significant difference in between patients with loosening and those without.

CONCLUSIONS

The enhancement of initial pedicle screw fixation strength in osteoporotic patients can be achieved by HA stick augmentation.

Comparative Analysis of Effect of Density, Insertion Angle and Reinsertion on Pull-Out Strength of Single and Two Pedicle Screw Constructs Using Synthetic Bone Model

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical study.

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion on pull-out strength of pedicle screw in single and two screw-rod configurations.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Pedicle screw pull-out studies have involved single screw construct, whereas two screws and rod constructs are always used in spine fusions. Extrapolation of results using the single screw construct may lead to using expensive implants or increasing the fusion levels specifically in osteoporotic bones.

METHODS

Single screw and two screw pull-out strength tests were carried out according to American Society for Testing and Materials F 543-07 on foam models to test the effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion using poly axial pedicle screws.

RESULTS

Bone density was the most significant factor deciding the pull-out strength in both single and two screw constructs. The difference in pull-out strength between single screw and two screw configurations in extremely osteoporotic bone model (80 kg/m(3)) was 78%, whereas in the normal bone model it was 48%. Axial pull-out value was highest for the single screw configuration; in the two screw configuration the highest pull-out strength was at 10°-15°. There was an 18% reduction in pull-out strength due to reinsertion in single screw configuration. The reinsertion effect was insignificant in the two screw configuration.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant difference in response of various factors on holding power of pedicle screw between single and two-screw configurations is evident. The percentage increase in pull-out strength between single and two screw constructs is higher for osteoporotic bone when compared to normal bone. Reinsertion has no significant effect on pull-out strength in the two screw rod configuration.