A biomechanical comparison between cortical bone trajectory fixation and pedicle screw fixation

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Yuichi Kasai³  Takaya Kato²  Takamasa Yoshikawa¹  Tadashi Inaba¹  Toshihiko Sakakibara³  Hiroki Oshino¹ 

[1] Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mie University, Tsu City, Mie, Japan;Community-University Research Cooperation Center, Mie University, Tsu City, Mie, Japan;Department of Spinal Surgery and Medical Engineering, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu City 514-8507, Mie, Japan

关键词: Stability;    Spinal instrumentation;    Spinal fusion;    Biomechanics;    Lumbar spine;   

Others  :  1227836
DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-015-0270-0

 received in 2015-05-12, accepted in 2015-08-05,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

There have been several reports on the pullout strength of cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws, but only one study has reviewed the stability of functional spine units using the CBT method. The purpose of this study was to compare vertebral stability after CBT fixation with that after pedicle screw (PS) fixation.

Methods

In this study, 20 lumbar spine (L5–6) specimens were assigned to two groups: the CBT model group that underwent CBT screw fixation (n = 10) and the PS model group that underwent pedicle screw fixation (n = 10). Using a six-axis material testing machine, bend and rotation tests were conducted on each model. The angular displacement from the time of no load to the time of maximum torque was defined as range of motion (ROM), and then, the mean ROM in the bend and rotation tests and the mean rate of relative change of ROM in both the bend and rotation tests were compared between the CBT and PS groups.

Results

There were no significant differences between the CBT and PS groups with regard to the mean ROMs and the mean rate of relative change of ROMs in both the bend and rotation tests.

Conclusion

Intervertebral stability after CBT fixation was similar to that after PS fixation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Oshino et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Santoni BG, Hynes RA, McGilvray KC, Rodriguez-Canessa G, Lyons AS, Henson MA, Womack WJ, Puttlitz CM. Cortical bone trajectory for lumber pedicle screws. Spine J. 2009; 9:366-37.
• [2]Mizuno M, Kuraishi K, Umeda Y, Sano T, Tsuji M, Suzuki H. Midline lumber fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw. Neurol Med Chir. 2014; 54:716-21.
• [3]Song T, Hsu WK, Ye T. Lumber pedicle cortical bone trajectory screw. Chin Med J. 2014; 127:3808-13.
• [4]Ueno M, Imura T, Inoue G, Takaso M. Posterior corrective fusion using a double-trajectory technique (cortical bone trajectory combined with traditional trajectory) for degenerative lumbar scoliosis with osteoporosis: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013; 19:600-7.
• [5]Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, Imabayashi H, Asazuma T, Nemoto K. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 26:E248-53.
• [6]Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Hynes RA, Imabayashi H, Hosogane N, Asazuma T, Toshiyasu M, Kobayashi Y, Nemoto K. Cortical bone trajectory for thoracic pedicle screws: a technical note. J Spinal Disord Tech. [Epub ahead of print] 2014, doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000130.
• [7]Perez-Orribo L, Kalb S, Reyes PM, Chang SW, Crawford NR. Biomechanics of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38:635-41.
• [8]Fujiwara M, Masuda T, Inaba T, Katoh T, Kasai Y, Ito S. Development of 6-axis material tester for measuring mechanical spine properties. J Robotics Mechanics. 2006; 18:160-6.
• [9]Kasai Y, Inaba T, Akeda K, Uchida A. Tadpole system as new lumbar spinal instrumentation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2008; 3:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Yoshikawa T, Oi S, Kasai Y, Wang Z, Inaba T, Uchida K, Watanabe R, Kato T, Nakamata T. Biomechanical study of lumbar spine using unilateral pedicle screw with tadpole fixation system. J Biomech Sci Eng. 2011; 6:391-8.
• [11]Takata Y, Matsuura T, Higashino K, Sakai T, Mishiro T, Suzue N, Kosaka H, Hamada D, Goto T, Nishisho T, Goda Y, Sato R, Tsutsui T, Tonogai I, Tezuka F, Mineta K, Kimura T, Nitta A, Higuchi T, Hama S, Sairyo K. Hybrid technique of cortical bone trajectory and pedicle screwing for minimally invasive spine reconstruction surgery: a technical note. J Med Invest. 2014; 61(3–4):388-92.
• [12]Rodriguez A, Neal MT, Liu A, Somasundaram A, Hsu W, Branch CL. Novel placement of cortical bone trajectory screws in previously instrumented pedicles for adjacent-segment lumbar disease using CT image-guided navigation. Neurosurg Focus. 2014; 36:E9.
• [13]Baluch DA, Patel AA, Lullo B, Havey RM, Voronov LI, Nguyen NL, Carandang G, Ghanayem AJ, Patwardhan AG. Effect of physiological loads on cortical and traditional pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39:E1297-1302.
• [14]Wasinpongwanich K, Sakakibara T, Yoshikawa T, Inaba T, Kasai Y. Are deer and boar spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? J Spine. 2014; 3:5.