Stability of pedicle screw in patients with osteoporosis: Follow-up visit

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2013.13.010

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Screw loosening and loss of correction are main complications in patients with osteoporosis receiving pedicle screw implantation. Therefore, osteoporosis is considered as a relative contraindication for pedicle screws.
OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical results of methods for improving stability of pedicle screw in patients with osteoporosis.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients with osteoporosis were treated with pedicle screw internal fixation, and the methods of improving stability of pedicle screw were applied during the operation. There were 14 cases of fractures (fracture group) and 20 cases of osteopathy. Spinal posterolateral or intervertebral body graft fusion was performed in the 20 cases of osteopathy and five cases of fractures (fusion group). According to Jikei grading scale for osteoporosis, eight cases were in early stage, 11 cases Ⅰ stage, eight cases Ⅱ stage and seven cases Ⅲ stage. For 19 cases inearly stage and Ⅰ stage osteoporosis, longer and large size of pedicle screws were used, combined with rod system with ankylosing connection between screws and connecting rods using two cross-link devices, placement of pedicle screw with large angles in the horizontal and the sagittal planes were applied to improve the relative stability of screw. For 15 cases of Ⅱ stage and Ⅲ stage osteoporosis, bone cement was used to fill the screw path to improve the absolute stability of screw.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There was no breakage of screw during the follow-up with the mean period of 14 months (ranged 9-26 months), only two cases in fracture group with Jikei Ⅰ stage osteoporosis had screw loosening at 5 to 6 months after fixation, as well as partial loss of correction of reduction, but no other adverse effects. The loss of correction of reduction in the fracture group was 5% in average, and the fusion rate was 100% in the fusion group. Different methods of improving the stability of pedicle screw applied in patients with osteoporosis according to different situations may reduce the occurrence of complications, such as screw loosening and loss of correction.

Key words: bone and joint implants, spinal implants, bone nails, osteoporosis, pedicle screw, stability, bone cement, cross-link device, toe-nail effect, fusion, photographs-containing paper of bone and joint implants

CLC Number:

R318

Yin Qu-dong, Tian Xiao-wu, Zheng Zu-gen. Stability of pedicle screw in patients with osteoporosis: Follow-up visit[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2013, 17(13): 2346-2351.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1] Zhou ZH, Cheng L, Yin QD. Research progress in stability of pedicle screw.Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu yu Linchuang Kangfu. 2011;15(26):4872-4875.

[2] Amendola L, Gasbarrini A, Fosco M, et al. Fenestrated pedicle screws for cement-augmented purchase in patients with bone softening: a review of 21 cases. J Orthop Traumatol. 2011;12(4):193-199.

[3] Paré PE, Chappuis JL, Rampersaud R, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel fenestrated pedicle screw augmented with bone cement in osteoporotic spines.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(18):E1210-E1214.

[4] Soshi S, Shiba R, Kondo H, et al. An experimental study on transpedicular screw fixation in relation to osteoporosis of the lumbar spine.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(11):1335-1341.

[5] Weinstein JN, Rydevik BL, Rauschning W. Anatomic and technical considerations of pedicle screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;(284):34-46.

[6] Polly DW Jr, Orchowski JR, Ellenbogen RG. Revision pedicle screws. Bigger, longer shims--what is best. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(12):1374-1379.

[7] Weng XS,Qiu GX,Zhao WD, et al. Biomechanical study of various pedicle screw revision techniques. Zhonghua Guke Zazhi. 2003;23(10):622-626.

[8] Frankel BM, Jones T, Wang C. Segmental polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation in patients with bone softening caused by osteoporosis and metastatic tumor involvement: a clinical evaluation. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3):531-537.

[9] Yin QD, Zheng ZG, Cai JP. Applied anatomy and mechanical test for placement of screw of pedicle-rib unit in the thoracic spine. Zhongguo Linchuang Jiepouxue Zazhi. 2005;23(5):538-539.

[10] Moon BJ, Cho BY, Choi EY, et al. Polymethylmethacrylate- augmented screw fixation for stabilization of the osteoporotic spine: a three-year follow-up of 37 patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009;46(4):305-311.

[11] Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R, et al. Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(11): 1462-1469.

[12] Bullmann V, Liljenqvist UR, Rödl R, et al. Pedicle screw augmentation from a biomechanical perspective. Orthopade. 2010;39(7):673-678.

[13] Yin QD, Zheng ZG, Cai JP, et al. An in vitro biomechanical study of the relative stability of pedicle screw. Jiangsu Yiyao. 2005;31(2):119-121.

[14] Ding Y, Ruan DK, Huang WH, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of cross-link device in pedicle screw systems. Zhongguo Linchuang Jiepouxue Zazhi. 2002;20(6): 466-468.

[15] Zhang GL, Li N, Gong MQ, et al. Characteristics of pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures among middle and old aged patients. Zhonghua Guke Zazhi. 2002; 22(12):727-731.

[16] Heyde CE, Rohlmann A, Weber U, et al. Stabilization of the osteoporotic spine from a biomechanical viewpoint. Orthopade. 2010;39(4):407-416.