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