Open AccessComparison of the Pull‐Out Strength between a Novel Micro‐Dynamic Pedicle Screw and a Traditional Pedicle Screw in Lumbar Spine
Author(s) -
Qian Lei,
Chen Weidong,
Li Peng,
Qu Dongbin,
Liang Wenjie,
Zheng Minghui,
Ouyang Jun
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
orthopaedic surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.666
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1757-7861
pISSN - 1757-7853
DOI - 10.1111/os.12742
Subject(s) - peek , bone mineral , lumbar vertebrae , orthodontics , lumbar , biomechanics , medicine , cyclic stress , lumbar spine , osteoporosis , materials science , surgery , anatomy , composite material , endocrinology , polymer
Objective This study aimed to investigate the strength of a novel micro‐dynamic pedicle screw by comparing it to the traditional pedicle screw. Methods Forty‐five lumbar vertebrae received a traditional pedicle screw on one side and a micro‐dynamic pedicle screw on the other side as follows (traditional group vs micro‐dynamic group): 15 vertebrae underwent instant pull‐out testing; 15 vertebrae underwent 5000‐cyclic fatigue loading testing; and 15 vertebrae underwent 10,000‐cyclic fatigue loading testing and micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) scanning. The peek pull‐out force and normalized peek pull‐out force after instant pull‐out testing, 5000‐cyclic and 10,000‐cyclic fatigue loading testing were recorded to estimate the resistance of two types of screws. Bone mineral density was recorded to investigate the strength of the different screws in osteoporotic patients. And the semidiameter of the screw insertion area on micro‐CT images after fatigue were compared to describe the performance between screw and bone surface. Results The bone mineral density showed a weak correlation with peek pull‐out force (r = 0.252, P = 0.024). The peek pull‐out force of traditional pedicle screw after 10,000‐cyclic fatigue loading were smaller than that of instant pull‐out test in both osteoporotic ( P = 0.017) and healthy group ( P = 0.029), the peek pull‐out force of micro‐dynamic pedicle screw after 10,000‐cyclic fatigue loading was smaller than that in instant pull‐out test in osteoporotic group ( P = 0.033), but no significant difference in healthy group ( P = 0.853). The peek pull‐out force in traditional group and micro‐dynamic group underwent instant pull‐out testing ( P = 0.485), and pull‐out testing after 5000‐cyclic fatigue loading testing ( P = 0.184) did not show significant difference. However, the peek pull‐out force in micro‐dynamic group underwent pull‐test after 10,000‐cyclic fatigue loading testing was significantly greater than that measured in traditional group ( P = 0.005). The normalized peek pull‐out force of traditional groups underwent instant pull‐out testing, pull‐out test after 5000‐cyclic and 10,000‐cyclic fatigue loading testing significantly decreased as the number of cycles increased ( P < 0.001); meanwhile, the normalized peek pull‐out force of micro‐dynamic groups remained consistent regardless of the number of cycles ( P = 0.133). The semidiameter after the fatigue loading test of the traditional screw insertion area was significantly larger than that of the micro‐dynamic screw insertion area ( P = 0.013). Conclusion The novel micro‐dynamic pedicle screw provides stronger fixation stability in high‐cyclic fatigue loading and non‐osteoporotic patients versus the traditional pedicle screw, but similar resistance in low‐cycle fatigue testing and osteoporotic group vs the traditional pedicle screw.