Subscribe to RSS
Download PDF
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732390
A influência da incompatibilidade do macho de rosca na resistência à extração do parafuso pedicular
Article in several languages: português | English
Resumo
Objetivo Nosso objetivo foi estudar a resistência à extração “in vitro” do parafuso SpineGuard/Zavation Dynamic Surgical Guidance Z-Direct (Parafuso DSG Guia Cirúrgico Dinâmico, SpineGuard Inc, Boulder, Colorado, USA), um parafuso projetado para ser inserido utilizando a técnica de inserção direta.
Métodos Os parafusos DSG de 5,5 e 6,5 mm foram introduzidos em blocos de poliuretano com densidade de 10 PCF (0,16g/cm3). De acordo com o grupo experimental, os parafusos foram inseridos sem um orifício piloto, com um orifício piloto sem o macheamento, com macheamento e com macheamento linha a linha. Os testes de extração do parafuso foram realizados em uma máquina de teste universal, após a inserção do parafuso em blocos de poliuretano.
Resultados Os parafusos inseridos diretamente nos blocos de poliuretano sem o orifício piloto e o macheamento mostraram uma resistência à extração estatisticamente maior. A inserção do parafuso sem o macheamento ou com o macho de menor diâmetro aumenta a resistência à extração do parafuso em comparação com o macheamento linha a linha.
Conclusão O parafuso DSG apresentou a maior resistência à extração após a inserção sem o orifício piloto e o macheamento.
Palavras-chave
fusão vertebral - parafusos pediculares - parafusos ósseos - fenômenos biomecânicos/fisiologiaSuporte Financeiro
Não houve suporte financeiro de fontes públicas, comerciais, ou sem fins lucrativos.
Trabalho desenvolvido no Laboratório de Bioengenharia da Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
Publication History
Received: 05 November 2020
Accepted: 08 March 2021
Article published online:
21 January 2022
© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
Referências
- 1 Aebi M, Etter C, Kehl T, Thalgott J. Stabilization of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine with the internal spinal skeletal fixation system. Indications, techniques, and first results of treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1987; 12 (06) 544-551
- 2 Cho W, Cho SK, Wu C. The biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (08) 1061-1065
- 3 Chen LH, Tai CL, Lai PL. et al. Pullout strength for cannulated pedicle screws with bone cement augmentation in severely osteoporotic bone: influences of radial hole and pilot hole tapping. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009; 24 (08) 613-618
- 4 Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM. et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20 (02) 196-203
- 5 Benzel E. Biomechanics of spine stabilization. New York: Thieme; 2001
- 6 Schatzker J, Horne JG, Sumner-Smith G. The reaction of cortical bone to compression by screw threads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975; (111) 263-265
- 7 Derincek A, Wu C, Mehbod A, Transfeldt EE. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic trajectory pedicle screw versus injectable calcium sulfate graft-augmented pedicle screw for salvage in cadaveric thoracic bone. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006; 19 (04) 286-291
- 8 Oktenoğlu BT, Ferrara LA, Andalkar N, Ozer AF, Sarioğlu AC, Benzel EC. Effects of hole preparation on screw pullout resistance and insertional torque: a biomechanical study. J Neurosurg 2001; 94 (1, Suppl): 91-96
- 9 Hsu CC, Chao CK, Wang JL, Hou SM, Tsai YT, Lin J. Increase of pullout strength of spinal pedicle screws with conical core: biomechanical tests and finite element analyses. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (04) 788-794
- 10 Bohl DD, Basques BA, Golinvaux NS. et al. Undertapping of Lumbar Pedicle Screws Can Result in Tapping With a Pitch That Differs From That of the Screw, Which Decreases Screw Pullout Force. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40 (12) E729-E734
- 11 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 (02) 164-168
- 12 Becker S, Chavanne A, Spitaler R. et al. Assessment of different screw augmentation techniques and screw designs in osteoporotic spines. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (11) 1462-1469
- 13 Cameron HU, Jacob R, Macnab I, Pilliar RM. Use of polymethylmethacrylate to enhance screw fixation in bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975; 57 (05) 655-656
- 14 Inceoglu S, Ferrara L, McLain RF. Pedicle screw fixation strength: pullout versus insertional torque. Spine J 2004; 4 (05) 513-518
- 15 Daftari TK, Horton WC, Hutton WC. Correlations between screw hole preparation, torque of insertion, and pullout strength for spinal screws. J Spinal Disord 1994; 7 (02) 139-145
- 16 Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, Cooke ME, McCabe R. Pedicle screw pullout strength. Correlation with insertional torque. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18 (12) 1673-1676
- 17 Kuklo TR, Lehman Jr RA. Effect of various tapping diameters on insertion of thoracic pedicle screws: a biomechanical analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28 (18) 2066-2071
- 18 Chatzistergos PE, Sapkas G, Kourkoulis SK. The influence of the insertion technique on the pullout force of pedicle screws: an experimental study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35 (09) E332-E337
- 19 Carmouche JJ, Molinari RW, Gerlinger T, Devine J, Patience T. Effects of pilot hole preparation technique on pedicle screw fixation in different regions of the osteoporotic thoracic and lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3 (05) 364-370
- 20 Cook SD, Salkeld SL, Stanley T, Faciane A, Miller SD. Biomechanical study of pedicle screw fixation in severely osteoporotic bone. Spine J 2004; 4 (04) 402-408
- 21 Chen SH, Mo Lin R, Chen HH, Tsai KJ. Biomechanical effects of polyaxial pedicle screw fixation on the lumbosacral segments with an anterior interbody cage support. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8: 28
- 22 Ponnappan RK, Serhan H, Zarda B, Patel R, Albert T, Vaccaro AR. Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J 2009; 9 (03) 263-267
- 23 Defino HL, Rosa RC, Silva P. et al. The effect of repetitive pilot-hole use on the insertion torque and pullout strength of vertebral system screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34 (09) 871-876
- 24 Scifert JL, Sairyo K, Goel VK. et al. Stability analysis of an enhanced load sharing posterior fixation device and its equivalent conventional device in a calf spine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999; 24 (21) 2206-2213
- 25 Lill CA, Schneider E, Goldhahn J, Haslemann A, Zeifang F. Mechanical performance of cylindrical and dual core pedicle screws in calf and human vertebrae. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2006; 126 (10) 686-694
- 26 Pfeiffer M, Gilbertson LG, Goel VK. et al. Effect of specimen fixation method on pullout tests of pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21 (09) 1037-1044
- 27 Pfeiffer FM, Abernathie DL, Smith DE. A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: a study using tapped and untapped pilot holes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31 (23) E867-E870