The tip-apex distance in the X-Bolt dynamic plating system

Beyond the pedicle screw-a patent review

PURPOSE

This review provides an overview of the patent literature on posteriorly placed intrapedicular bone anchors. Conventional pedicle screws are the gold standard to create a fixation in the vertebra for spinal fusion surgery but may lack fixation strength, especially in osteoporotic bone. The ageing population demands new bone anchors that have an increased fixation strength, that can be placed safely, and, if necessary, can be removed without damaging the surrounding tissue.

METHODS

The patent search was conducted using a classification search in the Espacenet patent database. Only patents with a Cooperative Patent Classification of A61B17/70 or A61B17/7001 concerning spinal positioners and stabilizers were eligible for inclusion. The search query resulted in the identification of 731 patents. Based on preset inclusion criteria, a total of 56 unique patents on different anchoring methods were included, reviewed and categorized in this study.

RESULTS

Five unique fixation methods were identified; (1) anchors that use threading, (2) anchors that utilize a curved path through the vertebra, (3) anchors that (partly) expand, (4) anchors that use cement and (5) anchors that are designed to initiate bone ingrowth. Of the anchor designs included in this study, eight had a corresponding commercial product, six of which were evaluated in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

This review provides insights into worldwide patented intrapedicular bone anchors that aim to increase the fixation strength compared to the conventional pedicle screw. The identified anchoring methods and their working principles can be used for clinical decision-making and as a source of inspiration when designing novel bone anchors.

The safety and accuracy of the fluoroscopic imaging during proximal femoral fixation: A computerized 3D reappraisal of the joint penetration risk

BACKGROUND

To assess the success of proximal cephalomedullary nailing operations for treating trochanteric fractures, surgeons utilize 2D fluoroscopy to observe the relative positions of the femoral head and the implant. One distance-based risk parameter, observed from the AP and Lateral projections, is the Tip-Surface Distance(TSD) that dictates how close to the outer cortex should the implant tip be residing to avoid post-surgical complications such as cut-out or joint penetration. In this study, the safety and the accuracy of the orthogonal fluoroscopic imaging were evaluated.

METHODS

A femoral head model was created and the risk zone was defined as a hemispherical shell of 5 mm thickness beneath the subchondral cortex, which should not be violated during screw insertion. The remaining hemisphere beneath the risk zone was designated as the safe zone. To assess the effect of head size, each simulation was conducted for 34, 47, and 60 mm diameter(D_femur) femoral heads. The rate of safe zone violation was calculated for all possible screw endpoints with a TSD of at least 5 mm on fluoroscopic orthogonal views (TSD_AP and TSD_Lat).

RESULTS

The minimum risk of joint penetration was achieved when the TSD_AP/TSD_Lat ratio was 1. For D_femur of 34 mm there was a risk of 91.7% of the safe zone violation when each TSD_AP and TSD_Lat were 5 mm and 0% for 9 mm. For D_femur of 47 mm, the risk was 92.2% for 5 mm and 0% for 11 mm. For D_femur of 60 mm, the risk was 92.3% for 5 mm and 0% for 13 mm. Safety maps were constructed for all possible TSD combinations for 34, 47, and 60 mm femoral heads.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending solely on the orthogonal fluoroscopic images is not a safe and accurate technique for assessing joint penetration risk during proximal femoral fixation due to the spherical geometry of the femoral head. The screw tip can lie completely outside of the femoral head even when it appears inside, in both orthogonal fluoroscopic views. Evidently, when using TSD, more stringent distance limits should be chosen, contrary to the recommended 5 mm limit. Our safety maps for TSD combinations may be used to check the security of the implantation.

Baseline quality of life in people with hip fracture: results from the multicentre WHiTE cohort study

Aims

To assess the variation in pre-fracture quality of life (QoL) within the UK hip fracture population, and quantify the nature and strength of associations between QoL and other routinely collected patient characteristics and treatment choices.

Methods

The World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE) study, an observational cohort study of UK hip fracture patients, collects a range of routine data and a health-related QoL score (EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D)). Pre-fracture QoL data are summarized and statistical models fitted to understand associations between QoL, patient characteristics, fracture types, and operations.

Results

Fitting a multiple linear regression model indicated that 36.5% of the variance in pre-fracture EQ-5D scores was explained by routinely collected patient characteristics: sex (0.14%), age (0.17%), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (0.73%), Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS; 1.3%), pre-fracture mobility (11.2%), and EQ-5D respondent (participant, relative, or carer; 23.0%). There was considerable variation in pre-fracture EQ-5D scores between operations within fracture types. Participants with trochanteric fractures reported statistically significant but not clinically relevant lower pre-fracture QoL than those with intracapsular fractures. Participants with intracapsular fractures treated with internal fixation or total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported better QoL than those treated with hemiarthroplasty with the overall fittest group receiving THA.

Conclusion

Pre-fracture QoL varies considerably between hip fracture patients; it is generally higher in younger than older patients, patients with better mobility, and those patients who live more independently. Pre-fracture QoL is significantly associated with a range of patient characteristics (e.g. age, mobility, residency). These data explain ~35% of the variation in QoL.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(8):468–476.