For the osteoporotic spine, screw injected augmentation showed the best biomechanical stability. Although pullout testing was more sensitive, the differences observed were not reflected in the more physiological fatigue testing, thus casting further doubt on the clinical relevance of pullout testing.

C1 pedicle screws were able to withstand higher toggle forces than lateral mass screws while maintaining a higher stiffness throughout and after testing. From a biomechanical point of view, the clinical use of pedicle screws in C1 is a promising alternative to lateral mass screws.

A possible method to reduce adjacent-level fractures after vertebroplasty in patients with reduced bone quality could be the use of a lower modulus cement. Therefore, mixing cement with biocompatible fluids could prove useful to tailor cement properties in the operating theater.

BackgroundPelvic ring–comminuted transforaminal sacral fracture injuries are rotationally and vertically unstable and have a high rate of failure.ObjectiveOur study purpose was to use three-dimensional (3D) optical tracking to detect onset location of bone–implant interface failure and measure the distances and angles between screws and line of applied force for correlation to strength of pelvic fracture fixation techniques.Methods3D relative motion across sacral–rami fractures and screws relative to bone was measured with an optical tracking system. Synthetic pelves were used. Comminuted transforaminal sacral–rami fractures were modelled. Each pelvis was stabilised by either (1) two iliosacral screws in S1, (2) one transsacral screw in S1 and one iliosacral screw in S1 and (3) one trans-alar screw in S1 and one iliosacral screw in S1; groups 4–6 consisted of fixation groups with addition of anterior inferior iliac pelvic external fixator. Eighteen-instrumented pelvic models with right ilium fixed simulate single-leg stance. Load was applied to centre of S1 superior endplate. Five cycles of torque was initially applied, sequentially increased until permanent deformation occurred. Five cycles of axial load compression was next applied, sequentially increased until permanent deformation occurred, followed by axial loading to catastrophic failure. A Student t test was used to determine significance (p < 0.05).ResultsThe model, protocol and 3D optical system have the ability to locate how sub-catastrophic failures initiate. Our results indicate failure of all screw-based constructs is due to localised bone failure (screw pull-in push-out at the ipsilateral ilium–screw interface, not in sacrum); thus, no difference was observed when not supplemented with external fixation.ConclusionInclusion of external fixation improved resistance only to torsional loading.Translational Potential of this ArticlePatients with comminuted transforaminal sacral–ipsilateral rami fractures benefit from this fixation.

Study DesignEx vivo human cadaveric study.ObjectiveThe development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation.MethodsEighteen human cadaver spines (T11–L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3–L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1–L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1–L3. ROM was then evaluated again.ResultsThere was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques.ConclusionBased on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved.