journal article·2021-10-22Open access

Biomechanical Comparison of Fixation Stability among Various Pedicle Screw Geometries: Effects of Screw Outer/Inner Projection Shape and Thread Profile

Ming-Kai Hsieh, Yun-Da Li, Mu-Yi Liu, Chen-Xue Lin, Tsung-Ting Tsai, Po-Liang Lai, Ching-Lung Tai

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 21

Abstract

The proper screw geometry and pilot-hole size remain controversial in current biomechanical studies. Variable results arise from differences in specimen anatomy and density, uncontrolled screw properties and mixed screw brands, in addition to the use of different tapping methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of bone density and pilot-hole size on the biomechanical performance of various pedicle screw geometries. Six screw designs, involving three different outer/inner projections of screws (cylindrical/conical, conical/conical and cylindrical/cylindrical), together with two different thread profiles (square and V), were examined. The insertional torque and pullout strength of each screw were measured following insertion of the screw into test blocks, with densities of 20 and 30 pcf, predrilled with 2.7-mm/3.2-mm/3.7-mm pilot holes. The correlation between the bone volume embedded in the screw threads and the pullout strength was statistically analyzed. Our study demonstrates that V-shaped screw threads showed a higher pullout strength than S-shaped threads in materials of different densities and among different pilot-hole sizes. The configuration, consisting of an outer cylindrical shape, an inner conical shape and V-shaped screw threads, showed the highest insertional torque and pullout strength at a normal and higher-than-normal bone density. Even with increasing pilot-hole size, this configuration maintained superiority.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques · Bone fractures and treatments · Shoulder and Clavicle Injuries

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Section, Bone and Joint Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan 33302, Taiwan

Graduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 33302, Taiwan

Funding

Chang Gung Memorial Hospital

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. Choice of rods in surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: What are the clinical implications of biomechanical properties?—A review of the literature10.14245/ns.1836050.025 ↗
2. Correction of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Using a Convex Pedicle Screw Technique: A Novel Technique for Deformity Correction10.2106/JBJS.ST.18.00009 ↗
3. Pedicle screw instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS)10.1007/s00586-011-1986-0 ↗
4. Spinal fusion-hardware construct: Basic concepts and imaging review10.4329/wjr.v4.i5.193 ↗
5. Frost, B.A., Camarero-Espinosa, S., and Johan-Foster, E. (2019). Materials for the spine: Anatomy, problems, and solutions. Materials, 12.10.3390/ma12020253 ↗
6. Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques10.1055/s-0036-1583945 ↗
7. Biomechanical Effects of a Dynamic Topping off Instrumentation in a Long Rigid Pedicle Screw Construct10.1097/BSD.0000000000000244 ↗
8. CoCr rods provide better frontal correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by all-pedicle screw fixation10.1007/s00586-014-3168-3 ↗
9. Lumbar decompression in the elderly: Increased age as a risk factor for complications and nonhome discharge10.3171/2016.8.SPINE16616 ↗
10. Predictors of Postoperative Complications After Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
11. Challenges to bone formation in spinal fusion10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.10.021 ↗
12. Methods of evaluating lumbar and cervical fusion10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.459 ↗
13. Lumbar pseudarthrosis: A review of current diagnosis and treatment10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15292 ↗
14. Lumbar interbody fusion: Recent advances in surgical techniques and bone healing strategies10.1007/s00586-020-06596-0 ↗
15. A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: A study using tapped and untapped pilot holes10.1097/01.brs.0000244658.35865.59 ↗
16. A comparison of screw insertion torque and pullout strength10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181c4a655 ↗
17. Screw insertion torque as parameter to judge the fixation. Assessment of torque and pull-out strength in different bone densities and screw-pitches10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.12.004 ↗
18. Stability and Spine Pedicle Screws Fixation Strength—A Comparative Study of Bone Density and Insertion Angle10.1016/j.jspd.2015.12.008 ↗
19. Effects of screw and host factors on insertion torque and pullout strength10.2319/070111-427.1 ↗
20. The effect of pilot hole size on the insertion torque and pullout strength of self-tapping cortical bone screws in osteoporotic bone
21. Assessment of pedicle screw pullout strength based on various screw designs and bone densities—An ex vivo biomechanical study10.1016/j.spinee.2012.01.014 ↗
22. Influence of diameter and geometry in the tapping of the pilot hole in pedicle screws10.1590/s1808-185120191801195390 ↗
23. Cancellous bone screw purchase: A comparison of synthetic femurs, human femurs, and finite element analysis10.1243/09544119JEIM409 ↗
24. Shea, T.M., Laun, J., Gonzalez-Blohm, S.A., Doulgeris, J.J., Lee, W.E., Aghayev, K., and Vrionis, F.D. (2014). Designs and Techniques That Improve the Pullout Strength of Pedicle Screws in Osteoporotic Vertebrae: Current Status. BioMed Res. Int., 2014.10.1155/2014/748393 ↗
25. Effect of various factors on pull out strength of pedicle screw in normal and osteoporotic cancellous bone models10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.11.012 ↗
26. (2020, April 02). ASTM F1839-08 (2016) Standard Specification for Rigid Polyurethane Foam for Use as a Standard Material for Testing Orthopaedic Devices and Instruments. Available online: https://www.astm.org/Standards/F1839.htm.
27. Chen, L.H., Tai, C.L., Lee, D.M., Lai, P.L., Lee, Y.C., Niu, C.C., and Chen, W.J. (2011). Pullout strength of pedicle screws with cement augmentation in severe osteoporosis: A comparative study between cannulated screws with cement injection and solid screws with cement pre-filling. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord., 12.10.1186/1471-2474-12-33 ↗
28. Liu, M.Y., Tsai, T.T., Lai, P.L., Hsieh, M.K., Chen, L.H., and Tai, C.L. (2020). Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw fixation strength in synthetic bones: Effects of screw shape, core/thread profile and cement augmentation. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0229328 ↗
29. Hsieh, M.K., Liu, M.Y., Chen, J.K., Tsai, T.T., Lai, P.L., Niu, C.C., and Tai, C.L. (2019). Biomechanical study of the fixation stability of broken pedicle screws and subsequent strategies. PLoS ONE, 14.10.1371/journal.pone.0219189 ↗
30. The biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.24237 ↗
31. Triangulated pedicle screw construct technique and pull-out strength of conical and cylindrical screws10.1097/00002517-200108000-00007 ↗
32. Characteristics of pullout failure in conical and cylindrical pedicle screws after full insertion and back-out10.1016/S1529-9430(01)00119-X ↗
33. Increasing Bending Strength and Pullout Strength in Conical Pedicle Screws: Biomechanical Tests and Finite Element Analyses10.1097/BSD.0b013e318073cc4b ↗
34. Increase of pullout strength of spinal pedicle screws with conical core: Biomechanical tests and finite element analyses10.1016/j.orthres.2004.11.002 ↗
35. Influence of thread design on pedicle screw fixation. Laboratory investigation10.3171/SPI/2008/9/7/090 ↗
36. Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Analysis of 1070 cases10.1097/BRS.0b013e318257f12a ↗
37. Risk Factors for Posterior Cage Migration after Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery10.4184/asj.2018.12.1.59 ↗