Biomechanical Properties of Novel Porous Scaffold Core and Hollow Lateral Hole Pedicle Screws: A Comparative Study in Bama Pigs

Abstract

Objective: Screw loosening is a common complication of internal fixation of pedicle screw. Therefore, the development of a pedicle screw with low loosening rate and high biosafety is of great clinical significance. This study aimed to investigate whether the application of a porous scaffold structure can improve the stability of pedicle screws by comparing the biomechanical properties of novel porous scaffold core pedicle screws (PSCPSs) with those of hollow lateral hole pedicle screws (HLHPSs) in a porcine lumbar spine.

Methods: Thirty-two pedicle screws of both types were implanted bilaterally into the L1–4 vertebrae of four Bama pigs, with our newly designed PSCPSs on the right and HLHPSs on the left. All the Bama pigs were sacrificed 16 weeks postoperatively, and the lumbar spine was freed into individual vertebrae. Biomechanical properties of both the pedicle screws were evaluated using pull-out tests, as well as cyclic bending and pull-out tests, while the mechanical properties were assessed using three-point bending tests. The data generated were statistically analyzed using paired-sample t-tests and two independent sample t-tests.

Results: We found that the maximal pull-out forces before and after cyclic bending of the PSCPSs (1161.50 ± 337.98 N and 1075.25 ± 223.33 N) were significantly higher than those of the HLHPSs (948.38 ± 194.32 N and 807.13 ± 242.75 N) (p < 0.05, p < 0.05). In 800 cycles of the bending tests, neither PSCPS nor HLHPS showed loosening or visible detachment, but their maximal pull-out forces after cyclic bending tests decreased compared to those in cycles without cyclic bending tests (7.43% and 14.89%, respectively), with no statistical significance (p > 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively). Additionally, both screws buckled rather than broke in the three-point bending tests, with no statistically significant differences between the maximal bending load and modulus of elasticity of the two screws (p > 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively).

Conclusions: Compared with the HLHPSs, the PSCPSs have greater pull-out resistance and better fatigue tolerance with appropriate mechanical properties. Therefore, PSCPSs theoretically have significant potential for clinical applications in reducing the incidence of loosening after pedicle screw implantation.

Keywords

Animal Surgery / Biomechanical Test / Pedicle Screw / Porous Scaffold / Screw Loosening

References

[1] Nowak B. Experimental study on the loosening of pedicle screws implanted to synthetic bone vertebra models and under non-pull-out mechanical loads. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019; 98: 200–204.

[2] Varghese V, Krishnan V, Kumar GS. Comparison of pullout strength of pedicle screws following revision using larger diameter screws. Med Eng Phys. 2019; 74: 180–185.

[3] Karakasli A, Acar N, Husemoglu RB. Biomechanical comparison of pullout strengths of six pedicle screws with different thread designs. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2021; 32(1): 192–197.

[4] Bredow J, Boese CK, Werner CM, et al. Predictive validity of preoperative CT scans and the risk of pedicle screw loosening in spinal surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016; 136(8): 1063–1067.

[5] Oikonomidis S, Grevenstein D, Yagdiran A, Scheyerer MJ, Eh M, Wegmann K, et al. Probe versus drill: a biomechanical evaluation of two different pedicle preparation techniques for pedicle screw fixation in human cadaveric osteoporotic spine. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020; 75: 104997.

[6] Rometsch E, Spruit M, Zigler JE, Menon VK, Ouellet JA, Mazel C, et al. Screw-related complications after instrumentation of the osteoporotic spine: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2019; 10(1): 69–88.

[7] Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, Berger-Roscher N, Kienle A, Wilke HJ. Pedicle screw loosening: a clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(5): 1005–1016.

[8] Varghese V, Saravana Kumar G, Krishnan V. 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.

[9] Lam TN, Trinh MG, Huang CC, Kung PC, Huang WC, Chang W, et al. Investigation of bone growth in additive-manufactured pedicle screw implant by using Ti-6Al-4V and bioactive glass powder composite. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21(20): 7438.

[10] Ulusoy OL, Kahraman S, Karalok I, Kaya E, Enercan M, Sever C, 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.

[11] Chen LH, Tai CL, Lee DM, Lai PL, Lee YC, Niu CC, 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.

[12] Lai DM, Shih YT, Chen YH, Chien A, Wang JL. Effect of pedicle screw diameter on screw fixation efficacy in human osteoporotic thoracic vertebrae. J Biomech. 2018; 70: 196–203.

[13] Kim YY, Choi WS, Rhyu KW. Assessment of pedicle screw pullout strength based on various screw designs and bone densities-an ex vivo biomechanical study. Spine J. 2012; 12(2): 164–168.

[14] Chang TC, Tsai PI, Chen SY, Kuo MY, Sun JS, Chang JZ. 3D laser-printed porous Ti(6)Al(4)V dental implants for compromised bone support. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020; 119(1 Pt 3): 420–429.

[15] McGilvray KC, Easley J, Seim HB, et al. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model. Spine J. 2018; 18(7): 1250–1260.

[16] Cheong VS, Fromme P, Mumith A, Coathup MJ, Blunn GW. Novel adaptive finite element algorithms to predict bone ingrowth in additive manufactured porous implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018; 87: 230–239.

[17] Ryan G, Pandit A, Apatsidis DP. Fabrication methods of porous metals for use in orthopaedic applications. Biomaterials. 2006; 27(13): 2651–2670.

[18] Diez-Escudero A, Andersson B, Carlsson E, Recker B, Link H, Järhult JD, et al. 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V alloys with silver coating combine osteocompatibility and antimicrobial properties. Biomater Adv. 2022; 133: 112629.

[19] Pałka K, Pokrowiecki R. Porous titanium implants: a review. Adv Eng Mater. 2018; 20(5): 1700648.

[20] Taniguchi N, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Sasaki K, Otsuki B, Nakamura T, et al. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016; 59: 690–701.

[21] Cheng A, Humayun A, Cohen DJ, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Additively manufactured 3D porous Ti-6Al-4V constructs mimic trabecular bone structure and regulate osteoblast proliferation, differentiation and local factor production in a porosity and surface roughness dependent manner. Biofabrication. 2014; 6(4): 045007.

[22] Gu Y, Sun Y, Shujaat S, Braem A, Politis C, Jacobs R. 3D-printed porous Ti6Al4V scaffolds for long bone repair in animal models: a systematic review. J Orthopaedic Surg Res. 2022; 17(1): 68.

[23] Han Q, Wang C, Chen H, Zhao X, Wang J. Porous tantalum and titanium in orthopedics: a review. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019; 5(11): 5798–5824.

[24] Su B, Peng X, Jiang D, Wu J, Qiao B, Li W, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluations of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66/glass fibre (n-HA/PA66/GF) as a novel bioactive bone screw. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(7): e68342.

[25] Jia C, Zhang R, Xing T, Gao H, Li H, Dong F, 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.

[26] Hu Y, Chu ZT, Shen SF, Zhong JB, Zhu BK, Wu JD, et al. Biomechanical properties of novel lateral hole pedicle screws and solid pedicle screws: a comparative study in the beagle dogs. Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(1): 328–336.

[27] Harper RA, Pfeiffer FM, Choma TJ. The minipig as a potential model for pedicle screw fixation: morphometry and mechanics. J Orthopaedic Surg Res. 2019; 14(1): 246.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.