Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles

William Sterba, Do Gyoon Kim, David P Fyhrie, Yener N. Yeni, Rahul Vaidya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Pedicle screw fixation to stabilize lumbar spinal fusion has become the gold standard for posterior stabilization. A significant percentage of surgical candidates are classified as obese or morbidly obese. For these patients, the depth of the incisions and soft tissue makes it extremely difficult to insert pedicle screws along the pedicle axis. As such, the pedicle screws can only be inserted in a much more sagittal axis. However, biomechanical stability of the angled screw insertion has been controversial. We hypothesized that the straight or parallel screw was a more stable construct compared to the angled or axially inserted screw when subjected to caudal cyclic loading. Methods: We obtained 12 fresh frozen lumbar vertebrae from L3 to L5 from five cadavers. Schantz screws (6.0 mm) were inserted into each pedicle, one angled and along the axis of the pedicle and the other parallel to the spinous process. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to guide insertion. Each screw was then subjected to caudal cyclic loads of 50 N for 2000 cycles at 2 Hz. Analysis of initial damage, initial rate of damage, and total damage during cyclic loading was undertaken. Findings: Average total fatigue damage for straight screws measured 0.398 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.689 ± 0.96 mm for angled screws. Statistical analysis for total fatigue damage ratio of angled to straight screws revealed that a significant stability was achieved in straight-screw construct (P < 0.03). Interpretation: This study showed that straight screw insertion results in a more stable pedicle-screw construct. The angled screw insertion technique resulted in more scattered values of damage indicating that the outcome from the angled screw fixation is less predictable. This validates the use of this technique to implant pedicle screws across the axis of the pedicle (parallel to the mid sagittal line) rather than along the axis, and has broad implications in instrumented posterior lumbar spinal surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)385-391
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Biomechanics
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2007

Fingerprint

Fatigue
Lumbar Vertebrae
Spinal Fusion
Cadaver
Pedicle Screws

Keywords

  • Biomechanical stability
  • Creep
  • Cyclic loading
  • Pedicle screw

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles. / Sterba, William; Kim, Do Gyoon; Fyhrie, David P; Yeni, Yener N.; Vaidya, Rahul.

In: Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 22, No. 4, 05.2007, p. 385-391.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sterba, William ; Kim, Do Gyoon ; Fyhrie, David P ; Yeni, Yener N. ; Vaidya, Rahul. / Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles. In: Clinical Biomechanics. 2007 ; Vol. 22, No. 4. pp. 385-391.
@article{91c57627139546e8b2c1a31926ba77ab,
title = "Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles",
abstract = "Background: Pedicle screw fixation to stabilize lumbar spinal fusion has become the gold standard for posterior stabilization. A significant percentage of surgical candidates are classified as obese or morbidly obese. For these patients, the depth of the incisions and soft tissue makes it extremely difficult to insert pedicle screws along the pedicle axis. As such, the pedicle screws can only be inserted in a much more sagittal axis. However, biomechanical stability of the angled screw insertion has been controversial. We hypothesized that the straight or parallel screw was a more stable construct compared to the angled or axially inserted screw when subjected to caudal cyclic loading. Methods: We obtained 12 fresh frozen lumbar vertebrae from L3 to L5 from five cadavers. Schantz screws (6.0 mm) were inserted into each pedicle, one angled and along the axis of the pedicle and the other parallel to the spinous process. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to guide insertion. Each screw was then subjected to caudal cyclic loads of 50 N for 2000 cycles at 2 Hz. Analysis of initial damage, initial rate of damage, and total damage during cyclic loading was undertaken. Findings: Average total fatigue damage for straight screws measured 0.398 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.689 ± 0.96 mm for angled screws. Statistical analysis for total fatigue damage ratio of angled to straight screws revealed that a significant stability was achieved in straight-screw construct (P < 0.03). Interpretation: This study showed that straight screw insertion results in a more stable pedicle-screw construct. The angled screw insertion technique resulted in more scattered values of damage indicating that the outcome from the angled screw fixation is less predictable. This validates the use of this technique to implant pedicle screws across the axis of the pedicle (parallel to the mid sagittal line) rather than along the axis, and has broad implications in instrumented posterior lumbar spinal surgery.",
keywords = "Biomechanical stability, Creep, Cyclic loading, Pedicle screw",
author = "William Sterba and Kim, {Do Gyoon} and Fyhrie, {David P} and Yeni, {Yener N.} and Rahul Vaidya",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.11.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "385--391",
journal = "Clinical Biomechanics",
issn = "0268-0033",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical analysis of differing pedicle screw insertion angles

AU - Sterba, William

AU - Kim, Do Gyoon

AU - Fyhrie, David P

AU - Yeni, Yener N.

AU - Vaidya, Rahul

PY - 2007/5

Y1 - 2007/5

N2 - Background: Pedicle screw fixation to stabilize lumbar spinal fusion has become the gold standard for posterior stabilization. A significant percentage of surgical candidates are classified as obese or morbidly obese. For these patients, the depth of the incisions and soft tissue makes it extremely difficult to insert pedicle screws along the pedicle axis. As such, the pedicle screws can only be inserted in a much more sagittal axis. However, biomechanical stability of the angled screw insertion has been controversial. We hypothesized that the straight or parallel screw was a more stable construct compared to the angled or axially inserted screw when subjected to caudal cyclic loading. Methods: We obtained 12 fresh frozen lumbar vertebrae from L3 to L5 from five cadavers. Schantz screws (6.0 mm) were inserted into each pedicle, one angled and along the axis of the pedicle and the other parallel to the spinous process. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to guide insertion. Each screw was then subjected to caudal cyclic loads of 50 N for 2000 cycles at 2 Hz. Analysis of initial damage, initial rate of damage, and total damage during cyclic loading was undertaken. Findings: Average total fatigue damage for straight screws measured 0.398 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.689 ± 0.96 mm for angled screws. Statistical analysis for total fatigue damage ratio of angled to straight screws revealed that a significant stability was achieved in straight-screw construct (P < 0.03). Interpretation: This study showed that straight screw insertion results in a more stable pedicle-screw construct. The angled screw insertion technique resulted in more scattered values of damage indicating that the outcome from the angled screw fixation is less predictable. This validates the use of this technique to implant pedicle screws across the axis of the pedicle (parallel to the mid sagittal line) rather than along the axis, and has broad implications in instrumented posterior lumbar spinal surgery.

AB - Background: Pedicle screw fixation to stabilize lumbar spinal fusion has become the gold standard for posterior stabilization. A significant percentage of surgical candidates are classified as obese or morbidly obese. For these patients, the depth of the incisions and soft tissue makes it extremely difficult to insert pedicle screws along the pedicle axis. As such, the pedicle screws can only be inserted in a much more sagittal axis. However, biomechanical stability of the angled screw insertion has been controversial. We hypothesized that the straight or parallel screw was a more stable construct compared to the angled or axially inserted screw when subjected to caudal cyclic loading. Methods: We obtained 12 fresh frozen lumbar vertebrae from L3 to L5 from five cadavers. Schantz screws (6.0 mm) were inserted into each pedicle, one angled and along the axis of the pedicle and the other parallel to the spinous process. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to guide insertion. Each screw was then subjected to caudal cyclic loads of 50 N for 2000 cycles at 2 Hz. Analysis of initial damage, initial rate of damage, and total damage during cyclic loading was undertaken. Findings: Average total fatigue damage for straight screws measured 0.398 ± 0.38 mm, and 0.689 ± 0.96 mm for angled screws. Statistical analysis for total fatigue damage ratio of angled to straight screws revealed that a significant stability was achieved in straight-screw construct (P < 0.03). Interpretation: This study showed that straight screw insertion results in a more stable pedicle-screw construct. The angled screw insertion technique resulted in more scattered values of damage indicating that the outcome from the angled screw fixation is less predictable. This validates the use of this technique to implant pedicle screws across the axis of the pedicle (parallel to the mid sagittal line) rather than along the axis, and has broad implications in instrumented posterior lumbar spinal surgery.

KW - Biomechanical stability

KW - Creep

KW - Cyclic loading

KW - Pedicle screw

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947692335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947692335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.11.007

DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.11.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 17208340

AN - SCOPUS:33947692335

VL - 22

SP - 385

EP - 391

JO - Clinical Biomechanics

JF - Clinical Biomechanics

SN - 0268-0033

IS - 4

ER -