Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design:

This is a broad, narrative review of the literature.

Objective:

In this review, we describe recent biomechanics studies on cement-augmented pedicle screws for osteoporotic spines to determine which factors influence the effect of cement augmentation.

Methods:

A search of Medline was performed, combining the search terms “pedicle screw” and (“augmentation” OR “cement”). Articles published in the past 5 years dealing with biomechanical testing were included.

Results:

Several factors have been identified to impact the effect of cement augmentation in osteoporotic spines. These include the type of augmentation material, the volume of injected cement, the timing of augmentation, the severity of osteoporosis, the design of the pedicle screw, and the specific augmenting technique, among others.

Conclusions:

This review elaborates the biomechanics of cement-augmented pedicle screws, determines which factors influence the augmentation effect, and identifies the risk factors of cement leakage in osteoporotic bone, which might offer some guidance when using this technique in clinical practice. Further, we provide information about newly designed screws and recently developed augmentation materials that provide higher screw stability as well as fewer cement-related complications.

Keywords

osteoporosis pedicle screw cement augmentation

Introduction

The transpedicular screw system has gained popularity during the past 2 decades to stabilize the posterior spine for the treatment of degenerative disorders, unstable fractures, deformities, and spine tumors.^1-3 However, the pedicle screw fixation system is more heavily impacted by decreased bone mineral density (BMD) than other fixation systems like the lamina hook.⁴ BMD usually plays a much more important role than other factors affecting the fixation strength, such as the insertion angle, insertion depth, and reinsertion of pedicle screws.^5,6 Various studies have found that the stability of pedicle screws is highly correlated to BMD.^4,7,8 Weiser et al⁹ concluded that there was a highly significant correlation between BMD and pedicle screw stability (r2 = 0.839). Spines with BMD below 80 mg/cm3 reached only 60% of the stability compared with those with adequate bone quality (>120 mg/cm3). Furthermore, osteoporotic patients are predisposed to screw loosening, displacement, or even pulling out, with larger posterior internal fixation failure rates.^10-12

Augmentation of pedicle screws with bone cement is recommended as an effective method to enhance the stability of posterior fixation in patients with osteoporosis.¹³ A number of recent biomechanical studies are available to help optimize the clinical implementation of this technique. In this review, we give an overview of the current spectrum of screw augmentation techniques to provide some information for clinical practice.

Methods

A search of MEDLINE was performed, combining search terms “pedicle screw” and (“augmentation” OR “cement” OR “PMMA”) from January 1, 2015 to February 15, 2020. The initial search identified 168 potential articles, which were screened for eligibility based on the abstracts. Studies dealing with biomechanical testing of cement-augmented pedicle screws both in cadaveric spines and synthetic bone blocks were included. Articles with only clinical data, case reports, review papers, letters to the editor, Non- English language articles, were excluded. 45 studies in total were eventually included in this review.

Factors Influencing the Effect of Cement Augmentation

Several factors have been identified to impact the effect of cement augmentation in osteoporotic spines. These include the type of augmentation materials, the volume of the injected cement, the timing of augmentation, the severity of osteoporosis, the design of pedicle screw, and the specific augmenting technique, among others. None of the factors should be regarded as independent when we try to increase the augmentation effect by considering these influential factors.

Different Augmentation Materials

The distinct effect of augmentation using different materials may be attributed to the diversity in cement properties. The most widely used material, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), is characterized by stability, high curing strength, and rapid solidification, and it tends to provide greater strength than many other augmentation materials,^14,15 although these materials are equipped with osteoconductivity, osteoinductivity, and biodegradability.

However, concerns have already been raised about the high exothermic polymerization temperature, toxicity of the monomer, and lack of osteoconductivity of PMMA, which is neither osteoinductive nor biodegradable.¹⁶ Calcium phosphate cement (CPC) and calcium sulfate cement (CSC) equipped with osteoconductivity and osteoinductivity used to act as 2 potential alternatives, but both of them are unable to offer an adequate short-term period of stability which is essential to bone remodeling.^17-19

As a consequence, the drawbacks of conventional cement prompt the development of not only robust but also bioactive and absorbable augmentation materials. The goals for such materials are to play a similar or even greater biomechanical role compared with PMMA as well as to be safe and biocompatible. A novel calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite (CPN) introduced by Sun et al^20-22 showed satisfying biodegradability, osteoinductivity in vivo, and exhibited equal even marginally higher maximal pullout force than PMMA. The dispersion pattern of the cement within cancellous bone is crucial to the effect of augmentation. Although the mechanical strength of CPN is weaker than that of PMMA, CPN has a more regular and symmetrical dispersion, which is conducive to achieving biomechanical stability similar to that of cannulated pedicle screws augmented by PMMA.²² In addition, silicone was found to be osteoconductive and nonhazardous to surrounding tissue and shown to exhibit nonexothermic curing, which was in contrast to PMMA.²³ Schmoelz et al²⁴ inserted 3 mL of self-curing elastomer (silicone) into a balloon cavity prior to cannulated pedicle screw insertion, and the elastomer group underwent significantly more mean cycles until loosening under cyclic cranio-caudal loading than the PMMA during in situ augmentation (9824 ± 1982 N vs. 7401 ± 1644 N). Recently, Spicher et al²⁵ introduced a novel ultrasound-melted polymer sleeve to improve pedicle screw anchorage. Biomechanical tests revealed it resisted a significantly higher number of load cycles than the nonaugmented controls, and the number of load cycles until failure was not different from PMMA-augmented screws. The thermoplastic polymer consisting of poly(L-lactide-co-D, L-lactide) copolymer has a biocompatible and biodegradable material structure with an approximate resorption time of 2 to 3 years and does not interfere with bone remodeling.²⁶ More recently, poly-dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (P-DCPD) cement, which has attractive safety characteristics such as nonexothermic curing and drug-eluting capacity, was demonstrated to significantly increase the pullout load of pedicle screws after augmentation to achieve the similar biomechanical property to PMMA.²⁷ The characteristics of different cements for pedicle screw augmentation are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Materials for Pedicle Screw Augmentation.

Augmentation materials	Biocompatibility	Plasticity	Remodeling	Curing exotherm	Osteoinductivity	Biodegradibility
PMMA^14-16	Poor	Easy	Hard	Intense	Poor	Hard
CPC¹⁷	Excellent	Easy	Easy	Slight	good	Easy
CSC^18,19	Good	Easy	Easy	limited	good	rapid
HA¹⁴	Good	Hard	Hard	—	good	Hard
CPN^20-22	Good	Easy	Easy	Slight	good	Easy
Silicone^23,24	Excellent	Easy	Easy	none	Excellent	—

PMMA: polymethylmethacrylate; CPC: calcium phosphate cement; CSC: calcium sulfate cement; HA: hydroxyapatite; CPN: calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite.

Volume of the Injected Cement

Various volumes of injected cement tend to provide different screw stabilities, and many recent studies have tried to determine the ideal injection volume for the cement augmentation technique, but it is quite difficult to acquire homogeneous results to use in clinical practice. Firstly, most studies are focused on biomechanical testing, using testing materials such as artificial bones or cadaveric specimens that differ somewhat from physiological conditions. Secondly, the heterogeneity of design in testing pedicle screws and augmentation techniques is not suitable for direct clinical applicability of the conclusions. Thirdly, the optimal volume of cement varies among different spinal locations along with changes of anatomical structures and mechanical properties. Moreover, bone stock is also a factor for determining the ideal cement volume. As a consequence, further studies should focus on clinical trials that take mainstream pedicle screws as the subject and find out which volume could acquire little fixation failure and cement-related complications for different conditions. Fortunately, we can still get some insights from current biomechanical studies.

To a certain degree, there is a positive correlation between the fixation strength and the volume of cement.²⁸ Leichtle et al²⁹ found that 3 mL of cement significantly improved failure load compared to 1 mL regardless of the tested spinal regions. But Liu et al²⁸ contended that a volume increase of 0.5 mL did not lead to a significantly increased pullout strength. However, a volume increment of 1 mL played a significant role in the increment of pedicle screw stability.³⁰ As a result, it is logical to raise the cement quantity to increase screw anchorage in poorer bone stock as long as no cement leakage takes place. However, excessive cement volume should be avoided. Past a certain threshold, extra cement provides little additional benefit to screw holding power, and it may be bad for stability after long-term physiological load and carry with it a greater potential to cause cement-related complications such as cement leakage or even bone necrosis. Pishnamaz et al³¹ found that a volume of 4.0 mL achieved little advantage over a volume of 1.5 mL regarding the immediate pullout strength without cyclic preloading, and the higher volume also suffered a larger reduction in screw holding power after cyclic loading. Fan et al³² contended the optimal filling volume of cement was 75% of the pedicle screw trajectory (about 1.03 mL) for conventional pedicle screw (CPS) augmentation, and the use of excessive bone cement did not increase the fixation stability but increased the risk of leakage. This result is opposite to the study of Jia et al,³³ which found that full (100%) trajectory augmentation increased the pullout strength by 39%, cycles to failure by 18%, and failure loads by 12% compared with half (50%) trajectory augmentation using allograft bone particles. Perhaps the reason is that the full-trajectory allograft bone particles could increase the contact area of screw and augmentation materials, a factor that is less important when the injectable bone cement quantity reaches 75% of the full tractor volume.

With respect to spinal segments, it is common to use more cement for the larger size of the lumbar spine than the thoracic spine. Leichtle et al²⁹ found that 1 mL of cement could significantly enhance the pedicle screw holding power in the lower thoracic region, whereas in the lumbar regions this effect was only found in the 3 mL cement-augmented groups. Hence, they advised the use of at least 1 mL cement in the thoracic spine and 3 mL in the lumbar spine.

In addition to the volume of cement injected, the distribution of bone cement after augmentation is also an important factor determining screw stability. Another nonnegligible factor which limits the cement volume is the cement leakage. When the vertebrae are subjected to cement leakage, a smaller quantity of cement might be reasonable. But keeping the enhancement of screw strength in mind, it would be best to focus on identifying the cement distribution most favorable to the augmentation effect. Liu et al³⁴ showed that 2.0 mL of cement for cannulated screws with 4 lateral holes and 1.0 or 1.5 mL for screws with 6 holes could increase screw stability to the same extent as 1.5 mL in the traditional augmentation method. To decrease cement leakage, they suggested 1.0 mL of cement for screws with 6 lateral holes. If we worry about the potential rise of cement leakage, trying to lengthen the cement distribution along the screw stem would be a useful method to reduce the cement quantity but not the augmentation strength.³⁵ For severely osteoporotic vertebrae, it is difficult to maintain the cement augmentation effect, but we can increase the cement volume and optimize the cement distribution at the same time. Liu et al³⁰ showed that a higher cement volume (3 mL) coupled with a design of fenestrated pedicle screws (FPS) with 2 pairs of holes (which made the injected cement distribute around the pedicle region containing more cortical bone compared to the design with 6 holes) offered the best biomechanical augmentation effect in severely osteoporotic vertebrae. Their result, however, should be carefully evaluated before clinical adoption, because a large injected cement volume and a cement cloud more proximal to the spinal canal would carry higher potential of cement leakage in severely osteoporotic spines. The effects of cement volume on screw biomechanics are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

The Effects of Cement Volume on Screw Biomechanics.

Study	Subject	Levels	Augmentation material	Screws	Volume	Biomechanics	Main finding
Liu et al 2016²⁸	Cadaveric spines, osteoporosis(-3.5<t value≤-2.5) and severe osteoporosis(t value≤-3.5)	L1-L5	PMMA	CPS	Osteoporosis: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5mL; Severe osteoporosis: 0, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3mL	Pull-out test	There is a significant positive correlation between screw stability and volume of PMMA, but within an increment of 0.5 mL, the screw stability is not significantly improved.
Leichtle et al 2016²⁹	Cadaveric spines(mean BMD, 0.7g/cm2)	T6-L5	PMMA	CPS; FPS	1, 3mL	Pull-out test	The use of at least 1 mL cement in the thoracic and 3 mL in the lumbar spine was recommended.
Liu et al 2018³⁰	Cadaveric spines (t value≤-3.5)	L1-L5	PMMA	CPS; FPS	0,2,2.5,3.0mL	Pull-out test	Screw stability is significantly correlated with distribution and volume of PMMA.
Pishnamaz et al 2018³¹	Cadaveric spines(mean t value, -4.25)	Thoracolumbar spines	PMMA	CPS without cement; FPS with cement	FPS:1.5, 4mL	Direct pull-out test; Cyclic loading test	No significant difference in the pullout strength was found between high and moderate quantity of cement.
Fan et al 2016³²	Cadaveric spines (BMD: 0.725 ± 0.084 g/cm2)	L1-L5	PMMA	CPS with cement filling various proportion of the trajectory	100% filling: 1.38mL; 75% filling: 1.03mL; 50% filling:0.69mL; 25% filling 0.35mL	Pull-out test; Periodic anti-bending test; Compression fatigue test	The optimal filling volume of the bone cement was 75% of the trajectory volume (about 1.03 mL)
Jia et al 2019³³	Cadaveric spines (BMD < 80 mg/mL)	T10-L5	Allograft bone particles	CPS with material filling various proportion of the trajectory	100% filling: 50% filling:0.69mL;	Pull-out test; Cyclic loading test	Full trajectory augmentation can provide greater strength compared with half trajectory augmentation.

CPS: conventional pedicle screws; EPS: expandable pedicle screws; PMMA: polymethylmethacrylate; BMD: bone mineral density; FPS: the fenestrated pedicle screws.

Timing of Cement Injection

It is recommended that screws need to be inserted before the initiation of cement hardening. Masaki et al³⁶ found that screws inserted 10 minutes after cement mixing showed the lowest pullout strength in comparison to 2-minute and 5-minute groups, and cross sectional observations also revealed that CPC diffused deeper into the trabecular bone in the 5-minute group than in the 10-minute group. Similarly, Cho et al¹¹ reported that augmentation power tended to increase up to 4 minutes after CPC injection but decreased after 6 minutes. Consequently, 4 or 5 minutes after cement mixing might be optimal timing for the screws augmented by CPC.

That the anchorage of screws varies with the timing of bonding of screws and cement could be explained by the mechanism of pedicle screw loosening. Cemented screw loosening might be divided into 2 types: one is due to displacement occurring at the cement−bone interface, whereas the other is due to displacement occurring at the screw−cement interface. Linhardt et al³⁷ found a more pronounced increase in pullout strength for screws inserted immediately after soft cement injection than screws placed into cured cement 60 minutes after injection. For the soft cement group, the failure occurred at the cement−bone interface, whereas for the cured cement group, the failure occurred at the screw−cement interface. Indeed, Schmoelz et al³⁸ revealed that pedicle screws augmented after a reposition maneuver showed a significantly higher number of load cycles until screw loosening and had a smaller per cycle motion during loading test in comparison to screws cemented prior to the reposition maneuver. The stress x-rays illustrated that pedicle screws cemented after a reposition maneuver showed the same loosening mechanism as the cement-bone type, whereas the screws repositioned after augmentation showed the screw-cement loosening mechanism. The soft cement could help to form much closer contact in the screw−cement interface after screw insertion if no other disturbance exists before cement solidification. But when screws are inserted into cured cement or the contact between screws and cement is subjected to outside shaking interference during cement curing, it might lead to some potential cracks in an otherwise tight screw−cement interface.

Severity of Osteoporosis

As is well known, decreased BMD exerts a negative impact on pedicle screw fixation. The holding power of screws is also higher with the larger BMD value under the condition of cement augmentation.^14,32 Liu et al²⁸ indicated that the maximum pullout strength for cement-augmented screws in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae (T score ≤-2.5) was significantly higher than that in severely osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae (T score ≤-3.5) augmented with the same volume of cement. Fan et al³² demonstrated the positive correlation between the BMD of lumbar vertebrae and the pullout strength of cemented screws, and illustrated that the maximum pullout strength was reduced by about 50 N as the BMD dropped by every 10 mg/mL.

Both the quality of cancellous bone surrounding a screw and the cement mass may affect the screw stability. Because most cemented pedicle screws tend to fail in the cement–bone interface under the axial pulling out force rather than the screw–cement interface²⁹—which might be explained by the fact that the strength of the cement–bone interface is weaker than the screw–cement interface³⁹—the higher quality of cancellous bone surrounding the cement mass would increase the strength of the screw–cement complex.

The injected cement serves to increase the local density of the screw trajectory to restore the original pedicle screw stability. Accordingly, the vertebrae of lower BMD that take on larger increment in local density after cement injection should derive more benefits from the cement augmentation. In other words, the benefits from cement augmentation decreased with increasing BMD. Weiser et al⁴⁰ recently observed that augmented screws exhibited a significant 50% increase in fatigue load compared to nonaugmented screws in osteoporotic specimens (BMD < 80 mg/cm3), whereas the cycles to failure only increased by 36% in the osteopenic BMD group (80–120 mg/cm3). As a result, a preoperative measurement of BMD by a micro-CT scanning or dual energy x-ray absorptiometry is necessary to predict the effect of augmentation, and there is no need to use cement with normal bone mass (BMD > 120 mg/cm³).⁴⁰ Of course, the targeted BMD should not be seriously low due to the potential for substantially increasing the risk of early screw loosening and cement leakage. It is found that early screw loosening might occur in sacral cement-augmented fixation if the BMD value is less than 0.6 g/cm².⁴¹

Different Pedicle Screw Designs

It is undoubted that pedicle screws with cement augmentation possess higher stability than those without cement augmentation for almost every kind of screw design,^15,42 but the degree of augmentation effect differs with the various designs of pedicle screws.

Without cement augmentation, the screw parameters conducive to holding power enhancement are also favorable to the cement augmentation condition. For example, thicker screws without cement exhibit higher anchorage under the same circumstances.⁴³ This rule may still be applicable to the cement augmentation technique. Modifying the thread design is a useful method to enhance screw anchorage. For example, the dual lead dual cored (DLDC) screws could provide higher pullout strength than CPS due to the greater flank overlap area (FOA). Tolunay et al⁴⁴ reported that DLDC screws with cement augmentation exhibited the highest pullout strength values among CPS and FPS with or without cement augmentation in both artificial bone and bovine vertebrae. The newly designed screws equipped with higher biomechanical strength merit further biomechanical studies to determine whether the cement augmentation technique could further raise their stability.

As for cemented screws of different designs, it is difficult to decide which kind of pedicle screw is best. Without cement, expansive pedicle screws(EPS) which are referring to the screws with expansive fins at tip offer higher pullout strength than CPS, but Tai et al⁴² found there is no statistical difference among CPS and EPS with cement augmentation. They also demonstrated that some design parameters of EPS, such as the number of fins and the extent of expansion, had little influence on screw-anchoring strength with or without cement. But Kiyak et al¹⁵ drew an opposite conclusion that an increase in both fin number and length had a positive effect on the pullout strength of EPS with cement, which might be interpreted to mean that EPS with longer fins and a larger number of fins come into contact with a higher volume of cement and form a more complicated fins−cement structure. But the translation to clinical practice should be approached cautiously because of the use of synthetic bone in the 2 studies. Because screws with diverse designs form different screw-cement shapes, and the design parameters affect the cement volume dispersing into bone, it seems reasonable to believe the screw design could be an important factor influencing cement augmentation.

When it comes to the comparison between cemented CPS and FPS, a number of studies contended the cemented CPS were equipped with better stability than FPS.^29,44,45 However, FPS are still frequently used as they are convenient to operate and can help to reduce operating time. Moreover, the design of cannulated screws with holes can control cement spread better than CPS and EPS¹⁵ so as to decrease cement leakage. In addition, surgeons can decide which screws should be augmented according to specific needs. Furthermore, the augmentation of FPS could also be performed percutaneously, which achieves similar stability compared to traditional augmentation methods.⁴⁶ There are many types of FPS available, and they provide different amounts of stability after cement injection. The difference mainly originates from the cement mass location, cement distribution in vertebrae, geometrical shape of the cement cloud, and cement volume flowing out of the fenestrations. Firstly, the closer the cement cloud approaches to the pedicle, the higher the purchase of FPS would be, as the pedicle area contains a larger mass of cortical bone.^30,34 Secondly, the geometrical shape of the cement cloud is an important factor influencing the stability of FPS. The irregular shape may be favorable to the screw’s purchase,^47,48 and the larger maximum length of cement could contribute to the higher holding power.⁴⁸ In addition, with the same volume of injected cement, the cylindrical cement mass has better performance than the conical mass, which can be explained by the larger cement-bone interfacial area of the cylindrical cement.^39,49

Another purpose of the improved FPS design is to increase intraoperative operability, such as reducing the injection pressure of cement. It is shown that the hollow part of the screw is the bottleneck to reducing perfusion pressure. When the inner diameter of the hollow part doubles, the injection pressure will drop by 59%.⁵⁰ To make up for the resulting loss of mechanical strength of the screws, an inner pin can be used to restore the screw strength.^50,51 It is also reported that a larger diameter hollow with an inner pin could significantly increase the cement augmentation effect; the reason might be that the lower perfusion allows for a higher volume of cement injection.⁵¹

Different Augmentation Technique

Commonly, the varieties of augmenting techniques rely on different pedicle screw designs. Generally, for solid screws, the cement should be injected into the prepared trajectory prior to the screw insertion, whereas cannulated screws with holes must be augmented by subsequent cement injection through the cannulation.

For pedicle screw loosening, the traditional augmentation is usually through the trajectory technique after the loosened screws are extracted. A modified technique called the expandable anchor bolt screw (EABS) technique is carried out with the following steps⁴³: (1) The vacant pedicle hole after loose pedicle screw removal is filled with cement of 1-2 mL. (2) A small pilot screw is inserted into the toothpaste-like cement. (3) The pilot screw is removed after the cement is hardened, leaving a trajectory with inner thread. (4)A thicker permanent screw is inserted in and expand the cement thread to achieve stronger holding power. Kang et al⁴³ proved the EABS technique could achieve higher strength than original fixation and traditional trajectory augmentation, whereas the traditional trajectory technique got a similar holding power to the original fixation.

Another technique is to apply the cement into a balloon-created cavity prior to screw insertion, which is called vertebroplasty augmentation. The augmentation effect of this method varies with the location of cement in the vertebral bodies. Charles et al⁵² found that the cement bolus around the proximal part of screws tend to have higher pullout forces. Cement augmentation via vertebroplasty has been shown to have a better effect than the injection technique. Schmoelz et al²⁴ compared the balloon cavity creation technique with the in situ augmentation technique with FPS and concluded that the balloon cavity creation technique could withstand more cyclic loads until loosening (9824 ± 1982 vs. 7401 ± 1644). However, the conclusion should be studied more rigorously in the future because the study used 2 different augmentation materials and 2 different pedicle screws when comparing the 2 augmentation techniques. Perhaps the better performance was a result of the combined effect of these variables.

As the length of the cement cloud has something to do with the resistance to axial forces, combining techniques could produce a better augmentation effect. Costa et al³⁵ revealed that cement injection through a fenestrated trocar and retrograde prefilling results in a higher pullout strength than the trajectory method, injection method, and the combination of the trajectory method with the vertebroplasty method.

Other Factors

In addition to the influential factors analyzed above, there are a few other factors affecting the cement augmentation technique. For example, the diversity in the structure of vertebrae is a mentionable factor capable of impacting the comparison results. It has been reported that the strength of cemented FPS is significantly better than that of CPS and even better than that of bicortical screws when it comes to the sacral screw fixation.⁵³ Its biomechanical stability could be equivalent to that of bicortical screws/sacral alar screws.⁵³

Complications of Cement Augmenting the Pedicle Screws

Cement leakage, pulmonary cement embolism (PCE), postoperative infection, and difficulty in revision surgery are considered as the main concerns related to cement augmentation technique.

The reported incidence of cement leakage in augmentation techniques was 62.30% to 81.68%, though most patients were clinically asymptomatic.^54-60 If the cement leakage causes a PCE, the consequence might be fatal.^61,62

Several factors would affect the occurrence of cement leakage and PCE. Firstly, higher cement volume and a larger number of pedicle screws augmented increase the likelihood of cement leakage and even PCE,^32,63-65 Secondly, the bone quality and the integrity of the vertebrae play an important role. The patients with severe osteoporosis or spinal metastasis exhibit a higher risk of cement leakage.^61,65,66 In addition, the distribution of cement also maters. The closer the cement cloud is to the pedicle, the higher the risk of leakage as there is more cancellous bone around the pedicle.^61,66 Another important factor would be the viscosity of cement. It seems that there is a potential advantage of high-viscosity cement in terms of reducing the incidence of cement leakage and enhancing the screw fixation effect.⁶⁷ As for spinal level, Janssen et al⁶¹ reported the risk of cement leakage was not affected by which spinal segments are augmented. However, it is found patients received instrumentation of thoracic or thoracolumbar spine had an increased risk to suffer from PCE, whereas the lumbar spine had a lower risk,⁵⁹ which might be explained by the thoracic location was more adjacent to the pulmonary artery. Before the cement augmentation technique is performed, these risk factors of cement leakage should be taken into account. Erdem et al⁶⁸ recommended cementing the strategic vertebrae alone instead of all segments, which are proved to provide adequate strength for screw attachment and decrease the volume of cement, subsequently reducing the risk of cement leakage and PCE. During the operation, cement injection should be performed under continuous fluoroscopy to avoid high-volume leakage, and be ceased as soon as leakage is noticed or suspected. To deal with systematic cement leakage, a second surgery, or an additional decompression to remove epidural cement might be required.^54,69

Since the commonly used PMMA is neither osteoinductive nor biodegradable, the persistent PMMA is likely to give rise to deep and superficial infection.⁷⁰ When it comes to the revision surgery due to infection, the instrumentation does not have to be removed if the intravenous anti-infection treatment works well^58,70

Another concern is the difficulty in screw extraction during revision surgery may pose a danger to the patient with osteoporosis. But 2 studiesdemonstrated that pedicle screws can be easily and safely removed after augmentation with PMMA^58,71 Although a high torque force was needed in the revision of cement-augmented pedicle screws, there was no relationship between the volume of the injected PMMA and the extraction force.⁷² When inserted into the pedicle again, the new screws would better to have a larger diameter than the removed, since it is difficult to augment again because of the sclerotic wall of the removed screws.⁷²

Conclusion

Biomechanical studies have identified several factors that impact the effect of cement augmentation in osteoporotic spines. These include the type of augmentation material, the volume of injected cement, the timing of augmentation, the severity of osteoporosis, the design of pedicle screw, and the specific augmenting technique, among others. But the final effect of cement augmentation is affected by the combination of factors, suggesting that we should comprehensively analyze the combined effects of these influential factors as well as consider the cement leakage risks when we design new pedicle screws or adopt findings from biomechanical studies into clinical practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Beijing (no. 7212117) to HS.

ORCID iD

Yuetian Wang, MD

References

Frankel

Jones

Wang

. Segmental polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation in patients with bone softening caused by osteoporosis and metastatic tumor involvement: a clinical evaluation. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(3):531–537; discussion 537-538. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000290899.15567.68

Hee

Wong

. Comparison of segmental pedicle screw instrumentation versus anterior instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic thoracolumbar and lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:1533–1542. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318067dc3d

Fisher

Singh

Boyd

, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of pedicle screw fixation for upper thoracic spine (T1-5) fractures: a retrospective cohort study of 27 cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;10:207–213. doi:10.3171/2008.12.spine0844

Wilke

Kaiser

Volkheimer

, et al. A pedicle screw system and a lamina hook system provide similar primary and long-term stability: a biomechanical in vitro study with quasi-static and dynamic loading conditions. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:2919–2928. doi:10.1007/s00586-016-4679-x

Krishnan

Varghese

Kumar

. Comparative analysis of effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion on pull-out strength of single and two pedicle screw constructs using synthetic bone model. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(3):414–421. doi:10.4184/asj.2016.10.3.414

Varghese

Saravana Kumar

Krishnan

. Effect of various factors on pull out strength of pedicle screw in normal and osteoporotic cancellous bone models. Med Eng Phys. 2017;40:28–38. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.11.012

Wray

Mimran

Vadapalli

Shetye

McGilvray

Puttlitz

. Pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine: effect of trajectory and screw design on acute biomechanical purchase. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(5):503–510. doi:10.3171/2014.10.spine14205

Amirouche

Solitro

Magnan

. Stability and spine pedicle screws fixation strength-a comparative study of bone density and insertion angle. Spine Deform. 2016;4(4):261–267. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2015.12.008

Weiser

Sehmisch

Lehmann

Viezens

. Techniques to increase pedicle screw stability in osteoporotic vertebrae. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2019;31(4):284–292. doi:10.1007/s00064-019-0608-6

10.

Okuyama

Abe

Suzuki

Tamura

Chiba

Sato

. Influence of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation: a study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. Spine J. 2001;1(6):402–407. doi:10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00078-x

11.

Cho

Erkan

Kang

Mehbod

Transfeldt

. The effect on the pullout strength by the timing of pedicle screw insertion after calcium phosphate cement injection. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(2):116–120. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181dd7961

12.

El Saman

Meier

Sander

Kelm

Marzi

Laurer

. Reduced loosening rate and loss of correction following posterior stabilization with or without PMMA augmentation of pedicle screws in vertebral fractures in the elderly. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2013;39(5):455–460. doi:10.1007/s00068-013-0310-6

13.

Yilmaz

Hwang

Oto

, et al. Surgical treatment of scoliosis in osteogenesis imperfecta with cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(3):174–180. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182624b76

14.

Rim

Park

Murovic

Lim

Park

. Biomechanical comparisons of pull out strengths after pedicle screw augmentation with hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, or polymethylmethacrylate in the cadaveric spine. World Neurosurg. 2015;83(6):976–981. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2015.01.056

15.

Kiyak

Balikci

Heydar

Bezer

. Comparison of the pullout strength of different pedicle screw designs and augmentation techniques in an osteoporotic bone model. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(1):3–11. doi:10.4184/asj.2018.12.1.3

16.

Lieberman

Togawa

Kayanja

. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty: filler materials. Spine J. 2005;5(6 suppl):305s–316s. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.02.020

17.

Larsson

Bauer

. Use of injectable calcium phosphate cement for fracture fixation: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(395):23–32. doi:10.1097/00003086-200202000-00004

18.

Watson

. The use of an injectable bone graft substitute in tibial metaphyseal fractures. Orthopedics. 2004;27(1 suppl):s103–s107.

19.

Glazer

Spencer

Alkalay

Schwardt

. In vivo evaluation of calcium sulfate as a bone graft substitute for lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2001;1(6):395–401. doi:10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00108-5

20.

Sun

Liu

, et al. A novel injectable calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite for the augmentation of cannulated pedicle-screw fixation. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017;12:3395–3406. doi:10.2147/IJN.S131962

21.

Sun

Liu

Chen

, et al. Effect of surgical factors on the augmentation of cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw fixation by a novel calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite. Front Med. 2019;13(5):590–601. doi:10.1007/s11684-019-0710-z

22.

Sun

Liu

, et al. A novel calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite for the augmentation of cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws fixation: a cadaver and biomechanical study. J Orthop Translat. 2019;20:56–66. doi:10.1016/j.jot.2019.08.001

23.

Song

Seta

Eichler

, et al. Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility of silicone and polymethyl methacrylate during the curing phase of polymerization. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2018;106(7):2693–2699. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.34086

24.

Schmoelz

Keiler

Konschake

, et al. Effect of pedicle screw augmentation with a self-curing elastomeric material under cranio-caudal cyclic loading-a cadaveric biomechanical study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):251–251. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0958-z

25.

Spicher

Lindtner

Zimmermann

Stofferin

Schmoelz

Ultrasound melted polymer sleeve for improved primary pedicle screw anchorage: a novel augmentation technique. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019;63:16–20. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.02.007

26.

Augat

Robioneck

Abdulazim

, et al. Fixation performance of an ultrasonically fused, bioresorbable osteosynthesis implant: a biomechanical and biocompatibility study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016;104(1):170–179. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33382

27.

Criado

Yokhana

Rahman

, et al. Biomechanical strength comparison of pedicle screw augmentation using poly-dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (P-DCPD) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cements. Spine Deform. 2020. doi:10.1007/s43390-019-00022-2

28.

Liu

Zhang

Xie

, et al. Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw augmented with different volumes of polymethylmethacrylate in osteoporotic and severely osteoporotic cadaveric lumbar vertebrae: an experimental study. Spine J. 2016;16:1124–1132. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2016.04.015

29.

Leichtle

Lorenz

Rothstock

, et al. Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(9):419–426. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.59.2000580

30.

Liu

Sheng

, et al. Biomechanical study of injectable hollow pedicle screws for PMMA augmentation in severely osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae: effect of PMMA distribution and volume on screw stability. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29(6):639–646. doi:10.3171/2018.4.SPINE171225

31.

Pishnamaz

Lange

Herren

, et al. The quantity of bone cement influences the anchorage of augmented pedicle screws in the osteoporotic spine: a biomechanical human cadaveric study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018;52:14–19. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.12.012

32.

Fan

Zhang

Shen

, et al. The biomechanical properties of pedicle screw fixation combined with trajectory bone cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29(2):78–85.

33.

Jia

Zhang

Xing

, et al. Biomechanical properties of pedicle screw fixation augmented with allograft bone particles in osteoporotic vertebrae: different sizes and amounts. Spine J. 2019;19(8):1443–1452. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2019.04.013

34.

Liu

Sheng

Luo

, et al. Biomechanical comparative study of the stability of injectable pedicle screws with different lateral holes augmented with different volumes of polymethylmethacrylate in osteoporotic lumbar vertebrae. Spine J. 2018;18(9):1637–1644. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.009

35.

Costa

Ortolina

Galbusera

, et al. Pedicle screw cement augmentation. A mechanical pullout study on different cement augmentation techniques. Med Eng Phys. 2016;38(2):181–186. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.11.020

36.

Masaki

Sasao

Miura

, et al. An experimental study on initial fixation strength in transpedicular screwing augmented with calcium phosphate cement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):E724–728. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181adc0e9

37.

Linhardt

Luring

Matussek

Hamberger

Plitz

Grifka

. Stability of pedicle screws after kyphoplasty augmentation: an experimental study to compare transpedicular screw fixation in soft and cured kyphoplasty cement. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(2):87–91. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000177212.52583.bd

38.

Schmoelz

Heinrichs

Schmidt

, et al. Timing of PMMA cement application for pedicle screw augmentation affects screw anchorage. Eur Spine J. 2017;26:2883–2890. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5053-3

39.

Liu

Sun

Luo

Zhang

Dai

. Biomechanical and finite element analyses of bone cement-Injectable cannulated pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic bone. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016;104(5):960–967. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33424

40.

Weiser

Huber

Sellenschloh

, et al. Time to augment?! Impact of cement augmentation on pedicle screw fixation strength depending on bone mineral density. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):1964–1971. doi:10.1007/s00586-018-5660-7

41.

Zhuang

Zheng

Zhang

. Effect of the degree of osteoporosis on the biomechanical anchoring strength of the sacral pedicle screws: an in vitro comparison between unaugmented bicortical screws and polymethylmethacrylate augmented unicortical screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(19):E925–E931. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c5fb21

42.

Tai

Tsai

Lai

Chen

Liu

Chen

. A biomechanical comparison of expansive pedicle screws for severe osteoporosis: the effects of screw design and cement augmentation. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0146294. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146294

43.

Kang

Cho

Kim

Park

, et al. Pullout strength after expandable polymethylmethacrylate transpedicular screw augmentation for pedicle screw loosening. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015;57(4):229–234. doi:10.3340/jkns.2015.57.4.229

44.

Tolunay

Başgül

Demir

Yaman

Arslan

. Pullout performance comparison of pedicle screws based on cement application and design parameters. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2015;229(11):786–793. doi:10.1177/0954411915612494

45.

Aycan

Tolunay

Demir

Yaman

Usta

. Pullout performance comparison of novel expandable pedicle screw with expandable poly-ether-ether-ketone shells and cement-augmented pedicle screws. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017;231(2):169–175. doi:10.1177/0954411916687792

46.

Bostelmann

Keiler

Steiger

Scholz

Cornelius

Schmoelz

. Effect of augmentation techniques on the failure of pedicle screws under cranio-caudal cyclic loading. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(1):181–188. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3904-3

47.

Tolunay

Arslan

Yaman

Dalbayrak

Demir

. Biomechanical performance of various cement-augmented cannulated pedicle screw designs for osteoporotic bones. Spine Deform. 2015;3(3):205–210. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.055

48.

Chen

Lai

Chen

, et al. Effect of different radial hole designs on pullout and structural strength of cannulated pedicle screws. Med Eng Phys. 2015;37(8):746–751. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.05.004

49.

Tan

Peng

, et al. Augmented PMMA distribution: improvement of mechanical property and reduction of leakage rate of a fenestrated pedicle screw with diameter-tapered perforations. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(6):971–977. doi:10.3171/2015.10.SPINE141275

50.

Wang

Zhang

Yang

Luo

. Perfusion pressure of a new cannulating fenestrated pedicle screw during cement augmentation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018;57:42–47. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.06.004

51.

Yang

Liu

. Pullout evaluation of sawbone experiment in different types of pedicle screws combined with bone cement augmentation for severe osteoporotic spine. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2018;20(2):55–64.

52.

Charles

Pelletier

Hydier

, et al. Pullout characteristics of percutaneous pedicle screws with different cement augmentation methods in elderly spines: an in vitro biomechanical study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(3):369–374. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2015.01.005

53.

Colman

Pond

Bachus

Lawrence

Spiker

Brodke

. Fenestrated screws augmented with pmma increase the pullout strength of sacral pedicle screws. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(3):E252–e256. doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000000228

54.

Guo

Tang

Guo

, et al. The cement leakage in cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation in degenerative lumbosacral diseases: a retrospective analysis of 202 cases and 950 augmented pedicle screws. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(7):1661–1669. doi:10.1007/s00586-019-05985-4

55.

Dai

Liu

Zhang

, et al. Surgical treatment of the osteoporotic spine with bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw fixation: technical description and preliminary application in 43 patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2015;70(2):114–119. doi:10.6061/clinics/2015(02)08

56.

Girardo

Cinnella

Gargiulo

Viglierchio

Rava

Aleotti

. Surgical treatment of osteoporotic thoraco-lumbar compressive fractures: the use of pedicle screw with augmentation PMMA. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(suppl 4):546–551. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5037-3

57.

Abousayed

Boktor

Sultan

Koptan

El-Miligui

. Augmentation of fenestrated pedicle screws with cement in patients with osteoporotic spine. J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2018;9(1):20–25. doi:10.4103/jcvjs.JCVJS_14_18

58.

Martin-Fernandez

Lopez-Herradon

Pinera

, et al. Potential risks of using cement-augmented screws for spinal fusion in patients with low bone quality. Spine J. 2017;17(8):1192–1199. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.029

59.

Janssen

Ryang

Gempt

, et al. Risk of cement leakage and pulmonary embolism by bone cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2017;17(6):837–844. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2017.01.009

60.

Mueller

Baldauf

Marx

Kirsch

Schroeder

Pillich

. Cement leakage in pedicle screw augmentation: a prospective analysis of 98 patients and 474 augmented pedicle screws. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25(1):103–109. doi:10.3171/2015.10.spine15511

61.

Janssen

Ryang

Gempt

, et al. Risk of cement leakage and pulmonary embolism by bone cement augmented pedicle screw fixation of the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2017;17(6):837–844.

62.

Ulusoy

Kahraman

Karalok

, et al. Pulmonary cement embolism following cement-augmented fenestrated pedicle screw fixation in adult spinal deformity patients with severe osteoporosis (analysis of 2978 fenestrated screws). Eur Spine J. 2018;27(9):2348–2356.

63.

Pishnamaz

Lange

Herren

, et al. The quantity of bone cement influences the anchorage of augmented pedicle screws in the osteoporotic spine: a biomechanical human cadaveric study. Clin Biomech. 2018;52:14–19.

64.

Tan

Peng

65.

Guo

Tang

Guo

66.

Martín-Fernández

López-Herrradón

Piñera

, et al. Potential risks of using cement-augmented screws for spinal fusion in patients with low bone quality. Spine J. 2017;17(8):1192–1199.

67.

Choma

Pfeiffer

Swope

Hirner

. Pedicle screw design and cement augmentation in osteoporotic vertebrae: effects of fenestrations and cement viscosity on fixation and extraction. Spine. 2012;37(26):1628–1632.

68.

Erdem

Karaca

Sarı

Yumrukcal

Tanli

Aydogan

. Application of cement on strategic vertebrae in the treatment of the osteoporotic spine. Spine J. 2017;17(3):328–337. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.001

69.

Ulusoy

Kahraman

Karalok

70.

Piñera

Duran

Lopez

Saez

Correia

Alvarez

. Instrumented lumbar arthrodesis in elderly patients: prospective study using cannulated cemented pedicle screw instrumentation. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(suppl 3):408–414. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1907-2

71.

Cho

Zheng

, et al. Is it safe to back out pedicle screws after augmentation with polymethyl methacrylate or calcium phosphate cement? A biomechanical study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(4):276–279. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181f605d0

72.

Bullmann

Schmoelz

Richter

Grathwohl

Schulte

. Revision of cannulated and perforated cement-augmented pedicle screws: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(19):E932–939. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c6ec60

The Biomechanical Properties of Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screws for Osteoporotic Spines

Abstract

Study Design:

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Factors Influencing the Effect of Cement Augmentation

Different Augmentation Materials

Volume of the Injected Cement

Timing of Cement Injection

Severity of Osteoporosis

Different Pedicle Screw Designs

Different Augmentation Technique

Other Factors

Complications of Cement Augmenting the Pedicle Screws

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References