Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2020
Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oikonomidis Stavros, Greven Johannes, Bredow Jan, Eh Madita, Prescher Andreas, Fischer Horst, Thüring Johannes, Eysel Peer, Hildebrand Frank, Kobbe Philipp, Scheyerer Max Joseph, Herren Christian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aim of this biomechanical investigation was to compare the biomechanical effects of a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK and titanium pedicle screw/rod device in osteoporotic human cadaveric spine.
METHODS: Ten human fresh-frozen cadaveric lumbar spines (L1-L5) have been used and were randomized into two groups according to the bone mineral density. A monosegmental posterior instrumentation (L3-L4) using titanium pedicle screws and rods was carried out in group A and using carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in group B. A cyclic loading test was performed at a frequency of 3 Hz, starting with a peak of 500 N for the first 2000 cycles, up to 950 N for 100,000 cycles under a general preload with 100 N. All specimens were evaluated with regard to a potential collapse of the implanted pedicle screws. A CT supported digital measurement of cavities around the pedicle at 3 defined measuring points was performed. Finally, the maximum zero-time failure load of all specimens was determined using a universal testing machine (80% Fmax).
FINDINGS: Regarding maximum axial force (group A: 2835 N, group B: 3006 N, p = 0.595) and maximum compression (group A: 11.67 mm, group B: 15.15 mm, p = 0.174) no statistical difference could be shown between the two groups. However, significant smaller cavity formation around the pedicle screws could be observed in group B (p = 0.007), especially around the screw tip (p < 0.001).
INTERPRETATION: Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK devices seem to be advantageous in terms of microscopic screw loosening compared to titanium devices.
METHODS: Ten human fresh-frozen cadaveric lumbar spines (L1-L5) have been used and were randomized into two groups according to the bone mineral density. A monosegmental posterior instrumentation (L3-L4) using titanium pedicle screws and rods was carried out in group A and using carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in group B. A cyclic loading test was performed at a frequency of 3 Hz, starting with a peak of 500 N for the first 2000 cycles, up to 950 N for 100,000 cycles under a general preload with 100 N. All specimens were evaluated with regard to a potential collapse of the implanted pedicle screws. A CT supported digital measurement of cavities around the pedicle at 3 defined measuring points was performed. Finally, the maximum zero-time failure load of all specimens was determined using a universal testing machine (80% Fmax).
FINDINGS: Regarding maximum axial force (group A: 2835 N, group B: 3006 N, p = 0.595) and maximum compression (group A: 11.67 mm, group B: 15.15 mm, p = 0.174) no statistical difference could be shown between the two groups. However, significant smaller cavity formation around the pedicle screws could be observed in group B (p = 0.007), especially around the screw tip (p < 0.001).
INTERPRETATION: Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK devices seem to be advantageous in terms of microscopic screw loosening compared to titanium devices.