Dual pitch titanium-coated pedicle screws improve initial and early fixation in a polyetheretherketone rod semi-rigid fixation system in sheep

Abstract Background: Reports on the efficacy of modifications to the thread design of pedicle screws are scarce. The aim of the study was to investigate initial and early fixation of pedicle screws with a plasma-sprayed titanium coating and dual pitch in the pedicle region (dual pitch titanium-coated pedicle screw [DPTCPS]) in a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod semi-rigid fixation system. Methods: Fifty-four sheep spine specimens and 64 sheep were used to investigate initial (“0-week” controls) and early (post-operative 6 months) fixation, respectively. Sheep were divided into dual pitch pedicle screw (DPPS), standard pitch pedicle screw (SPPS), DPTCPS, and standard pitch titanium-coated pedicle screw (SPTCPS) groups. Specimens/sheep were instrumented with four screws and two rods. Biomechanical evaluations were performed, and histology at the implant-bone interface was investigated. Results: At 0-week, mean axial pull-out strength was significantly higher for the DPTCPS and SPTCPS than the SPPS (557.0 ± 25.2 vs. 459.1 ± 19.1 N, t = 3.61, P < 0.05; 622.6 ± 25.2 vs. 459.1 ± 19.1 N, t = 3.43, P < 0.05). On toggle-testing, the DPTCPS was significantly more resistant than the SPPS and SPTCPS (343.4 ± 16.5 vs. 237.5 ± 12.9 N, t = 3.52, P < 0.05; 343.4 ± 16.5 vs. 289.9 ± 12.8 N, t = 3.12, P < 0.05; 124.7 ± 13.5 vs. 41.9 ± 4.3 cycles, t = 2.18, P < 0.05; 124.7 ± 13.5 vs.79.5 ± 11.8 cycles, t = 2.76, P < 0.05). On cyclic loading, maximum displacement was significantly lower for the DPTCPS than the SPPS and SPTCPS (1.8 ± 0.13 vs. 3.76 ± 0.19 mm, t = 2.29, P < 0.05; 1.8 ± 0.13 vs. 2.46 ± 10.20 mm, t = 2.69, P < 0.05). At post-operative 6 months, mean axial pull-out strength was significantly higher for the DPTCPS and SPTCPS than the SPPS (908.4 ± 33.6 vs. 646.5 ± 59.4 N, t = 3.34, P < 0.05; 925.9 ± 53.9 vs. 646.5 ± 59.4 N, t = 3.37, P < 0.05). On toggle-testing, the DPTCPS was significantly more resistant than the SPPS and SPTCPS (496.9 ± 17.9 vs. 370.3 ± 16.4 N, t = 2.86, P < 0.05; 496.9 ± 17.9 vs. 414.1 ± 12.8 N, t = 2.74, P < 0.05; 249.1 ± 11.0 vs.149.9 ± 11.1 cycles, t = 2.54, P < 0.05; 249.1 ± 11.0 vs.199.8 ± 7.2 cycles, t = 2.61, P < 0.05). On cyclic loading, maximum displacement was significantly lower for the DPTCPS than the SPPS and SPTCPS (0.96 ± 0.11 vs. 2.39 ± 0.14 mm, t = 2.57, P < 0.05; 0.96 ± 0.11 vs. 1.82 ± 0.12 mm, t = 2.73, P < 0.05). Resistance to toggle testing (370.3 ± 16.4 vs. 414.1 ± 12.8 N, t = 3.29, P < 0.05; 149.9 ± 11.1 vs.199.8 ± 7.2 cycles, t = 2.97, P < 0.05) was significantly lower and maximum displacement in cyclic loading (2.39 ± 0.14 vs.1.82 ± 0.12 mm; t = 3.06, P < 0.05) was significantly higher for the SPTCPS than the DPTCPS. Bone-to-implant contact was significantly increased for the DPTCPS compared to the SPPS (58.3% ± 7.0% vs. 36.5% ± 4.4%, t = 2.74, P < 0.05); there was no inflammatory reaction or degradation of coated particles. Conclusion: DPTCPSs might have stronger initial and early fixation in a PEEK rod semi-rigid fixation system.

[1]  M. Buchfelder,et al.  Mechanical stability of a novel screw design after repeated insertion: can the double-thread screw serve as a back up? , 2018, Journal of neurosurgical sciences.

[2]  T. Kaito.  Biologic enhancement of spinal fusion with bone morphogenetic proteins: current position based on clinical evidence and future perspective. , 2016, Journal of spine surgery.

[3]  K. Jang,et al.  Evaluation of Titanium-Coated Pedicle Screws: In Vivo Porcine Lumbar Spine Model. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[4]  W. Schmoelz,et al.  Construct stability of an instrumented 2-level cervical corpectomy model following fatigue testing: biomechanical comparison of circumferential antero-posterior instrumentation versus a novel anterior-only transpedicular screw–plate fixation technique , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[5]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Effect of Physiological Loads on Cortical and Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation , 2014, Spine.

[6]  G. Huber,et al.  Influence of the screw augmentation technique and a diameter increase on pedicle screw fixation in the osteoporotic spine: pullout versus fatigue testing , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[7]  A. Diwan,et al.  Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilizers for degenerative spine: in vitro biomechanical testing and clinical outcomes. , 2014, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[8]  S. Paderni,et al.  Posterior lumbar fusion by peek rods in degenerative spine: preliminary report on 30 cases , 2012, European Spine Journal.

[9]  Roger Chou,et al.  Surgery for Low Back Pain: A Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline , 2009, Spine.

[10]  H. Möller,et al.  A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[11]  P. Newton,et al.  Pedicle Screw Surface Coatings Improve Fixation in Nonfusion Spinal Constructs , 2009, Spine.

[12]  A. Mahar,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of different anchors (foundations) for the pediatric dual growing rod technique. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[13]  Ching-Kong Chao,et al.  Increasing Bending Strength and Pullout Strength in Conical Pedicle Screws: Biomechanical Tests and Finite Element Analyses , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[14]  Kyung-Woo Park,et al.  Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices , 2007, Biomedical materials.

[15]  S. Kurtz,et al.  PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[16]  W. Barsoum,et al.  Options for acetabular fixation surfaces. , 2007, Journal of long-term effects of medical implants.

[17]  H. An,et al.  Hydroxyapatite-coating of pedicle screws improves resistance against pull-out force in the osteoporotic canine lumbar spine model: a pilot study. , 2005, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[18]  J. Ong,et al.  Evaluation of titanium plasma-sprayed and plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite implants in vivo. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[19]  O. Schwarzenbach,et al.  The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Chyun-Yu Yang,et al.  Failure of hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular cups. Ten-year follow-up of 85 Landos Atoll arthroplasties. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  Anders Nordwall,et al.  Chronic Low Back Pain and Fusion: A Comparison of Three Surgical Techniques: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study From the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group , 2002, Spine.