Biomechanical Study of 3 Osteoconductive Materials Applied in Pedicle Augmentation and Revision for Osteoporotic Vertebrae: Allograft Bone Particles, Calcium Phosphate Cement, Demineralized Bone Matrix.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurospine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-31 DOI:10.14245/ns.2346760.380
Chongyu Jia, Renjie Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Bo Zhang, Huaqing Zhang, Liang Kang, Luping Zhou, Cailiang Shen
{"title":"Biomechanical Study of 3 Osteoconductive Materials Applied in Pedicle Augmentation and Revision for Osteoporotic Vertebrae: Allograft Bone Particles, Calcium Phosphate Cement, Demineralized Bone Matrix.","authors":"Chongyu Jia, Renjie Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Bo Zhang, Huaqing Zhang, Liang Kang, Luping Zhou, Cailiang Shen","doi":"10.14245/ns.2346760.380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study assessed biomechanical properties of pedicle screws enhanced or revised with 3 materials. We aimed to compare the efficacy of these materials in pedicle augmentation and revision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred twenty human cadaveric vertebrae were utilized for in vitro testing. Vertebrae bone density was evaluated. Allograft bone particles (ABP), calcium phosphate cement (CPC), and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) were used to augment or revise pedicle screw. Post the implantation of pedicle screws, parameters such as insertional torque, pullout strength, cycles to failure and failure load were measured using specialized instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ABP, CPC, and DBM significantly enhanced biomechanical properties of the screws. CPC augmentation showed superior properties compared to ABP or DBM. ABP-augmented screws had higher cycles to failure and failure loads than DBM-augmented screws, with no difference in pullout strength. CPC-revised screws exhibited similar strength to the original screws, while ABP-revised screws showed comparable cycles to failure and failure loads but lower pullout strength. DBM-revised screws did not match the original screws' strength.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ABP, CPC, and DBM effectively improve pedicle screw stability for pedicle augmentation. CPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, followed by ABP, while DBM was less effective. For pedicle revision, CPC is recommended as the primary choice, with ABP as an alternative. However, using DBM for pedicle revision is not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":19269,"journal":{"name":"Neurospine","volume":"20 4","pages":"1407-1420"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10762407/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurospine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2346760.380","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed biomechanical properties of pedicle screws enhanced or revised with 3 materials. We aimed to compare the efficacy of these materials in pedicle augmentation and revision.

Methods: One hundred twenty human cadaveric vertebrae were utilized for in vitro testing. Vertebrae bone density was evaluated. Allograft bone particles (ABP), calcium phosphate cement (CPC), and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) were used to augment or revise pedicle screw. Post the implantation of pedicle screws, parameters such as insertional torque, pullout strength, cycles to failure and failure load were measured using specialized instruments.

Results: ABP, CPC, and DBM significantly enhanced biomechanical properties of the screws. CPC augmentation showed superior properties compared to ABP or DBM. ABP-augmented screws had higher cycles to failure and failure loads than DBM-augmented screws, with no difference in pullout strength. CPC-revised screws exhibited similar strength to the original screws, while ABP-revised screws showed comparable cycles to failure and failure loads but lower pullout strength. DBM-revised screws did not match the original screws' strength.

Conclusion: ABP, CPC, and DBM effectively improve pedicle screw stability for pedicle augmentation. CPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, followed by ABP, while DBM was less effective. For pedicle revision, CPC is recommended as the primary choice, with ABP as an alternative. However, using DBM for pedicle revision is not recommended.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用于骨质疏松椎体椎弓根植入和翻修的三种骨传导材料的生物力学研究:同种异体骨颗粒、磷酸钙水泥、脱矿骨基质。
研究目的本研究评估了使用 3 种材料增强或修正椎弓根螺钉的生物力学特性。我们旨在比较这些材料在椎弓根螺钉增强和修正中的功效:方法:利用 120 个人体椎体进行体外测试。对椎骨骨密度进行了评估。使用同种异体骨颗粒(ABP)、磷酸钙水泥(CPC)和去矿化骨基质(DBM)来增强或修正椎弓根螺钉。植入椎弓根螺钉后,使用专用仪器测量了插入扭矩、拉拔强度、失效周期和失效负荷等参数:结果:ABP、CPC 和 DBM 显著增强了螺钉的生物力学特性。与 ABP 或 DBM 相比,CPC 增强显示出更优越的特性。与 DBM 增强螺钉相比,ABP 增强螺钉的失效周期和失效载荷更高,拉出强度没有差异。CPC 改良螺钉的强度与原始螺钉相似,而 ABP 改良螺钉的失效周期和失效载荷与原始螺钉相当,但拉拔强度较低。结论:结论:ABP、CPC 和 DBM 可有效提高椎弓根螺钉植入术的稳定性。结论:ABP、CPC 和 DBM 能有效提高椎弓根螺钉的稳定性。CPC 的疗效最高,其次是 ABP,而 DBM 的疗效较低。对于椎弓根翻修,建议将 CPC 作为首选,ABP 作为备选。但不建议使用 DBM 进行椎弓根翻修。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurospine
Neurospine Multiple-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
93
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Self-Developed Mobility Augmented Reality System Versus Conventional X-rays for Spine Positioning in Intraspinal Tumor Surgery: A Case-Control Study. An Experimental Model for Fluid Dynamics and Pressures During Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy. Application of the "Klotski Technique" in Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament With En Bloc Type Dura Ossification. Artificial Intelligence Detection of Cervical Spine Fractures Using Convolutional Neural Network Models. Biomechanical Study of Atlanto-occipital Instability in Type II Basilar Invagination: A Finite Element Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1