Investigation of toggling effect on pullout performance of pedicle screws

Abstract

Objective of this study is to assess the pullout performance of various pedicle screws in different test materials after toggling tests comparatively. Solid core, cannulated (cemented), novel expandable and solid-core (cemented) pedicle screws were instrumented to the polyurethane foams (Grade 10 and Grade 40) produced in laboratory and bovine vertebra. ASTM F543 standard was used for preparation process of samples. Toggling tests were carried out. After toggling test procedures, pullout tests were performed. Load versus displacement graph was recorded, and the ultimate pullout force was defined as the maximum load (pullout strength) sustained before failure of screw. Anteriosuperior and oblique radiographs were taken from each sample after instrumentation in order to examine screw placement and cement distribution. The pullout strength of pedicle screws decreased after toggling tests with respect to the initial condition. While the cemented solid-core pedicle screws had the highest pullout strength in all test materials, they had the highest strength differences. The cemented solid-core pedicle screws had decrement rates of 27% and 16% in Grade 10 and Grade 40, respectively. There are almost same decrement rate (between 5.5% and 6.5%) for all types of pedicle screws instrumented to the samples of bovine vertebra. The pullout strengths of novel expandable pedicle screws in both of early period and after toggling conditions were almost similar, in other words, the decrement rates of it were lower than other types. According to the data collected from this study, polymethylmethacrylate augmentation significantly decreases pullout strength following the toggling loads. Higher brittleness of cured polymethylmethacrylate has adverse effect on the pullout strength. Although augmentation is an important process for enhancing pullout strength in early period, it has some disadvantages for preserving stabilization in a long time. Expandable pedicle screw with polyetheretherketone shell may be good alternative to polymethylmethacrylate augmentation on both primer stabilization and long-term loading application with toggling.

Keywords

Toggling bovine vertebra pedicle screw polyurethane foam pullout strength expandable polyetheretherketone shell

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

et al . Comparison study of biomechanical test among fixation techniques of three types screw of posterior approach for C2. Zhongguo Gu Shang 2009; 22(1): 17–20.

Abshire

McLain

Valdevit

et al . Characteristics of pullout failure in conical and cylindrical pedicle screws after full insertion and back-out. Spine J 2001; 1(6): 408–414.

Becker

Chavanne

Spitaler

et al . Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1462–1469.

Jiang

Arlet

Beckman

et al . Double pedicle screw instrumentation in the osteoporotic spine: a biomechanical feasibility study. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007; 20: 430–435.

Demir

Basgul

The pullout performance of pedicle screws (SpringerBriefs in Computational Mechanics). New York: Springer, 2015.

ASTM F543. Standard specification and test methods for metallic medical bone screws, 2002.

Chao

Lai

Chen

et al . Biomechanical analysis of different types of pedicle screw augmentation: a cadaveric and synthetic bone sample study of instrumented vertebral specimens. Med Eng Phys 2013; 35(10): 1506–1512.

Vishnubhotla

McGarry

Mahar

et al . A titanium expandable pedicle screw improves initial pullout strength as compared with standard pedicle screws. Spine J 2011; 11: 777–781.

Liu

Lei

et al . Augmentation of pedicle screw stability with calcium sulfate cement in osteoporotic sheep: biomechanical and screw-bone interfacial evaluation. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24: 235–241.

10.

Fransen

Increasing pedicle screw anchoring in the osteoporotic spine by cement injection through the implant. Technical note and report of three cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 366–369.

11.

Milcan

Ayan

Zeren

et al . Evaluation of cyanoacrylate augmentation of transpedicular screw pullout strength. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18: 511–514.

12.

Tami

Leitner

Baucke

et al . Hydroxyapatite particles maintain peri-implant bone mantle during osseointegration in osteoporotic bone. Bone 2009; 45: 1117–1124.

13.

Choma

Pfeiffer

Swope

et al . Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine 2012; 37(26): E1628–1132.

14.

Chen

Tai

Lee

et al . Pullout strength of pedicle screws with cement augmentation in severe osteoporosis: a comparative study between cannulated screws with cement injection and solid screws with cement pre-filling. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 33.

15.

Demir

Örmeci

MF.

New Pedicle Screw Design With Expandable Shell for Low Bone Quality. J Med Dev 2014;8(2): 020935-020935-2.

16.

Demir

A new alternative to expandable pedicle screws: Expandable poly-ether-ether-ketone shell. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2015; 229(5): 386–394.

17.

Mehmanparast

Petit

Mac-Thiong

JM.

Comparison of pedicle screw loosening mechanisms and the effect on fixation strength. J Biomech Eng 2015; 137(12): 121001–121007.

18.

Firoozbakhsh

DeCoster

Moneim

Effect of cyclical loading on the holding power of surgical screws. Orthopedics 1994; 17(7): 607–611.

19.

Patel

Hukins

Shepherd

The effect of “toggling” on the pullout strength of bone screws in normal and osteoporotic bone models. Open Mech Eng J 2013; 7(1): 35–39.

20.

Lotz

Chiu

et al . Carbonated apatite cement augmentation of pedicle screw fixation in the lumbar spine. Spine 1997; 22(23): 2716–2723.

21.

İnceoğlu

Ehlert

Akbay

et al . Axial cyclic behavior of the bone-screw interface. Med Eng Phys 2006; 28: 888–893.

22.

Mehmanparast

Mac-Thiong

Petit

Biomechanical evaluation of pedicle screw loosening mechanism using synthetic bone surrogate of various densities. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2014; 2014: 4346–4349.

23.

ASTM F1839. Standard specification for rigid polyurethane foam for use as a standard material for testing orthopedic devices and instruments, 2012.

24.

Aycan

Tolunay

Demir

et al . Pullout performance comparison of novel expandable pedicle screw with expandable poly-ether-ether-ketone shells and cement-augmented pedicle screws. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2017; 231(2): 169–175.

25.

Paik

Dmitriev

Lehman

et al . The biomechanical effect of pedicle screw hubbing on pullout resistance in the thoracic spine. Spine J 2012; 12(5): 417–424.

26.

Athanasakopoulos

Mavrogenis

Triantafyllopoulos

et al . Posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws. Orthopeadic 2013; 36(7): 951–958.

27.

Tolunay

Arslan

Yaman

et al . Biomechanical performance of various cement-augmented cannulated pedicle screw designs for osteoporotic bones. Spine Deformity 2015; 3: 205–210.

28.

Tolunay

Başgül

Demir

et al . Pullout performance comparison of pedicle screws based on cement application and design parameters. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2015; 229(11): 786–793.

29.

Huiskes

Nunamaker

Local stresses bone adaption around orthopedic implants. Calcif Tissue Int 1984; 36(Suppl. 1): 110–117.

30.

Funk

Litsky

Effect of cement modulus on the shear properties of the bone-cement interface. Biomaterials 1998; 19(17): 1561–1567.