These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [BIOMECHANICAL STRENGTH INFLUENCE OF LATERAL WALL VIOLATION ON SPINAL PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION].
    Author: Zhuang Y, Cao X.
    Journal: Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Feb; 29(2):189-93. PubMed ID: 26455148.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the fixation strength of optimum placed pedicle screw (OS) with redirectionally correctly placed pedicle screw (RS) following a violation of lateral pedicle. METHODS: Thirty fresh lumbar vertebrae (L1-5) were obtained from 6 pigs weighing 95-105 kg, male or female. Each vertebra was instrumented with a monoaxial pedicle screw into each pedicle using two different techniques. On one side, a perfect screw path was created using direct visualization and fluoroscopy. A pedicle screw of 5 mm in diameter and 35 mm in length was placed with a digital torque driver (OS). On the other side, a lateral pedicle wall violation was created at the pedicle-vertebral body junction with a guide wire, a cannulated tap, and a pedicle probe. This path was then redirected into a correct position, developed, and instrumented with a 5-mm-diameter by 35-mm-long pedicle screw (RS). For each pedicle screw, the maximal torque, seating torque, screw loosening force, and post-loosening axial pullout were measured. Screw loosening and axial pullout were assessed using an MTS machine. RESULTS: Maximal insertion torque was (111.4 ± 8.2) N x cm and (78.9 ± 6.4) N x cm for OS and RS respectively, showing significant difference (Z = 3.038, P = 0.002). The seating torque was (86.3 ± 7.7) N x cm and (59.7 ± 5.3) N x cm for OS and RS respectively, showing significant difference (Z = 2.802, P = 0.005). The screw loosening force was (76.3 ± 6.2) N and (53.0 ± 5.8) N for OS and RS respectively, showing significant difference (Z = 2.861, P = 0.004). The post-loosening axial pullout force was (343.0 ± 12.6) N and (287.0?10.5) N for OS and RS respectively, showing significant difference (Z = 2.964, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Compared with OS, RS placement after a lateral wall violation shows significantly decreased maximal insertion torque, seating torque, screw loosening force, and post-loosening axial pullout. On this occasion, RS augmentation is a probable option for remediation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]