Purpose To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of a bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screw (CICPS) in the treatment of spondylolysis-type lumbar spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 37 patients (Dual-energy X-ray bone density detection showed different degrees of osteoporosis) with spondylolysis-type lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction and fusion using a new type of injectable bone cement screw from May 2011 to March 2015. Postoperative clinical efficacy was evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Imaging indexes were used to evaluate the stability of internal fixation of the devices 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and annually thereafter. The safety of the CICPS was assessed by the prevalence of intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results A total of 124 CICPS were implanted intraoperatively. Bone cement leakage occurred in 3 screws (2.42%), and no clinical discomfort was found in any patients. All 37 patients were followed up with an average follow-up time of 26.6 ± 13.4 months (12–58 months). In the evaluation of the clinical effects of the operation, the average postoperative VAS score of the patients decreased from 4.30 ± 1.58 before surgery to 0.30 ± 0.70 after surgery (P < 0.001), and the ODI decreased from 47.27% ± 16.97% before surgery to 3.36% ± 5.70% after surgery (P < 0.001). No screw was loose, broken or pulled out. Conclusion CICPS is safe and effective in the treatment of spondylolysis-type lumbar spondylolisthesis complicated by osteoporosis.
Background Biomechanical and finite element analyses were performed to investigate the efficacy of second-generation bone cement-injectable cannulated pedicle screws (CICPS) in osteoporosis. Methods This study used the biomechanical test module of polyurethane to simulate osteoporotic cancellous bone. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement was used to anchor the pedicle screws in the module. The specimens were divided into two groups for the mechanical tests: the experimental group (second-generation CICPS) and control group (first-generation CICPS). Safety was evaluated using maximum shear force, static bending, and dynamic bending tests. Biomechanical stability evaluations included the maximum axial pullout force and rotary torque tests. X-ray imaging and computed tomography were used to evaluate the distribution of bone cement 24 h after PMMA injection, and stress distribution at the screw fracture and screw–cement–bone interface was assessed using finite element analysis. Results Mechanical testing revealed that the experimental group (349.8 ± 28.6 N) had a higher maximum axial pullout force than the control group (277.3 ± 8.6 N; P < 0.05). The bending moments of the experimental group (128.5 ± 9.08 N) were comparable to those of the control group (113.4 ± 20.9 N; P > 0.05). The screw-in and spin-out torques of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group (spin-in, 0.793 ± 0.015 vs. 0.577 ± 0.062 N, P < 0.01; spin-out, 0.764 ± 0.027 vs. 0.612 ± 0.049 N, P < 0.01). Bone cement was mainly distributed at the front three-fifths of the screw in both groups, but the distribution was more uniform in the experimental group than in the control group. After pullout, the bone cement was closely connected to the screw, without loosening or fragmentation. In the finite element analysis, stress on the second-generation CICPS was concentrated at the proximal screw outlet, whereas stress on the first-generation CICPS was concentrated at the screw neck, and the screw–bone cement–bone interface stress of the experimental group was smaller than that of the control group. Conclusion These findings suggest that second-generation CICPS have higher safety and stability than first-generation CICPS and may be a superior choice for the treatment of osteoporosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.