Clinical Effects and Complications of Pedicle Screw Augmentation with Bone Cement: Comparison of Fenestrated Screw Augmentation and Vertebroplasty Augmentation

Background Pedicle screw augmentation with bone cement has been experimentally demonstrated to increase the pullout strength. However, the mechanisms of screw loosening are complicated and interacting. Although vertebroplasty augmentation and fenestrated screw augmentation have been compared in many studies, there has been no comparative study on their clinical effects and complications in real clinical settings. We investigated clinical effects of bone cement augmentation of a pedicle screw and differences according to augmentation methods. Methods Of the total 241 patients who had osteoporosis and underwent posterior pedicle screw fixation without anterior bone graft between January 2010 and December 2016, 132 patients with ≥2 years of radiological follow-up were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into group I (unaugmented) and group II (bone cement augmented). Group II was subdivided into II-S group (solid screw augmented) and II-F group (fenestrated screw augmented). The incidence of screw loosening was compared between groups I and II. Cement leakage, screw loosening, and screw fractures were investigated in the subgroups. Results In total, 36 of 71 (52%, group I) unaugmented cases and 96 of 170 (56%, group II) augmented cases were followed up for ≥2 years. Of the total 78 solid screw augmented cases, 42 (56%) were in II-S group; 54 of the total 92 (59%) fenestrated screw augmented cases were in II-F group. Groups I and II were homogenous regarding demographic characteristics; II-S and II-F groups were also homogenous. The incidence of screw loosening was 50.0% (18/36) in group I and 7.3% (7/96) in group II (p < 0.001). Cement leakage developed in 2 of 42 (4.8%) cases in II-S group and in 5 of 54 (9.3%) cases in II-F group (p = 0.462). Screw loosening developed in 6 of 42 (14.3%) cases in II-S group and in 1 of 54 cases (1.9%) in II-F group (p = 0.041). Screw fracture developed in none of 42 cases in II-S group and in 3 of 54 cases (5.6%) in II-F group (p = 0.254). Conclusions In osteoporotic patients, bone cement augmentation of a pedicle screw decreased the incidence of screw loosening, and fenestrated screw augmentation was more effective than vertebroplasty augmentation.

[1]  U. Leichtle,et al.  Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae , 2016, Bone & joint research.

[2]  G. Sala,et al.  Pedicle screw cement augmentation. A mechanical pullout study on different cement augmentation techniques. , 2016, Medical engineering & physics.

[3]  W. Lei,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Expansive Pedicle Screw and Polymethylmethacrylate-augmented Pedicle Screw in Osteoporotic Synthetic Bone in Primary Implantation: An Experimental Study , 2013, Clinical spine surgery.

[4]  T. Demir,et al.  Pullout performance comparison of pedicle screws based on cement application and design parameters , 2015, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[5]  S. Yi,et al.  Biomechanical Comparisons of Pull Out Strengths After Pedicle Screw Augmentation with Hydroxyapatite, Calcium Phosphate, or Polymethylmethacrylate in the Cadaveric Spine. , 2015, World neurosurgery.

[6]  Ioan A. Lina,et al.  The biomechanics of pedicle screw augmentation with cement. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[7]  E. Sauleau,et al.  Pullout characteristics of percutaneous pedicle screws with different cement augmentation methods in elderly spines: An in vitro biomechanical study. , 2015, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[8]  P. Drees,et al.  Axial pullout strength comparison of different screw designs: fenestrated screw, dual outer diameter screw and standard pedicle screw , 2015, Scoliosis.

[9]  Seung-Won Park,et al.  Pullout Strength after Expandable Polymethylmethacrylate Transpedicular Screw Augmentation for Pedicle Screw Loosening , 2015, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[10]  Metin Ozalay,et al.  Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation. , 2014, Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica.

[11]  Charles H. Cho,et al.  An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[12]  Chien-Lin Liu,et al.  Polymethylmethacrylate Augmentation of Cannulated Pedicle Screws for Fixation in Osteoporotic Spines and Comparison of its Clinical Results and Biomechanical Characteristics With the Needle Injection Method , 2013, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[13]  F. Pfeiffer,et al.  Pedicle Screw Design and Cement Augmentation in Osteoporotic Vertebrae: Effects of Fenestrations and Cement Viscosity on Fixation and Extraction , 2012, Spine.

[14]  Zi-xiang Wu,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of different techniques in primary spinal surgery in osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: expansive pedicle screw versus polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw , 2011, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[15]  M. Richter,et al.  Revision of Cannulated and Perforated Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screws: A Biomechanical Study in Human Cadavers , 2010, Spine.

[16]  U. Liljenqvist,et al.  Pedikelschraubenaugmentation aus biomechanischer Sicht , 2010, Der Orthopäde.

[17]  U. Liljenqvist,et al.  [Pedicle screw augmentation from a biomechanical perspective]. , 2010, Der Orthopade.

[18]  C. Niu,et al.  Pullout strength for cannulated pedicle screws with bone cement augmentation in severely osteoporotic bone: influences of radial hole and pilot hole tapping. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[19]  M. Tezer,et al.  The Pedicle Screw Fixation With Vertebroplasty Augmentation in the Surgical Treatment of the Severe Osteoporotic Spines , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[20]  M. Ogon,et al.  Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[21]  Sabino J. D’Agostino,et al.  A biomechanical cadaveric analysis of polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[22]  Chunhui Wu,et al.  Biomechanical Comparison of Anatomic Trajectory Pedicle Screw versus Injectable Calcium Sulfate Graft-Augmented Pedicle Screw for Salvage in Cadaveric Thoracic Bone , 2006, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[23]  S. Cook,et al.  Biomechanical study of pedicle screw fixation in severely osteoporotic bone. , 2004, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[24]  P. Caregnato,et al.  Quantitative benefits provided by acute tissue expansion: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. , 2000, British journal of plastic surgery.

[25]  W. Hayes,et al.  Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. , 1993, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.