Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation
The aim of the present study was to compare calcium sulfate (CAS) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cements used for the augmentation of a failed pedicle screw with biomechanical pull-out strength (POS) testing. Thirty lumbar vertebrae were harvested from 6 calves and bone mineral densities (BM...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica 2014, Vol.48 (2), p.202-206 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 206 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 202 |
| container_title | Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica |
| container_volume | 48 |
| creator | Güler, Umit Ozgür Derincek, Alihan Hersekli, Murat Ali Ozalay, Metin Cinar, Bekir Murat Acaroğlu, Emre |
| description | The aim of the present study was to compare calcium sulfate (CAS) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cements used for the augmentation of a failed pedicle screw with biomechanical pull-out strength (POS) testing.
Thirty lumbar vertebrae were harvested from 6 calves and bone mineral densities (BMD) were measured. Primary polyaxial pedicle screws were randomly inserted and pulled out and the POSs of the specimen were recorded. For revision, specimens were randomly assigned to the CAS-augmented pedicle screws group (Group 1) or PMMA-augmented pedicle screw group (Group 2). Pull-out tests were repeated to compare both groups.
Mean BMD of the specimens was 1.006 ± 0.116 g/cm(2). There were no statistically significant differences between BMD results of the two groups (p=0.116). For Group 1, mean POS of primary screws was 2,441.3 ± 936.4 N and was 2,499.5 ± 1,425.1 N after CAS augmentation, demonstrating no statistically significant difference (p=0.865). In Group 2, mean POS of the primary screws was 2,876.6 ± 926.6 N and significantly increased to 3,745.5 ± 1,299.2 N after PMMA augmentation (p=0.047). There was also a significant difference in mean POS between the CAS and PMMA groups (p=0.026).
Although CAS augmentation facilitates a revision screw POS as strong as that of primary screws, it is not as strong as PMMA augmentation. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3944/AOTT.2014.3193 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3944_AOTT_2014_3193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>24747630</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-dca6656da5699ed813219658d8d74464b4aabda78ecb6d964b82d3ef611b46b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kM1KxDAUhbNQnHF061LyAq1Nk6aNu2HwD4QBGcFdSZPbaST9IUmVvoWP7NRRN_fCufccDh9CVySJqWDsZr3d7eI0ISymRNATtCQJySMhsrcFOvf-PUlYJig9Q4uU5SznNFmirxfwoXcymL7DfY2H0dqoHwP2wUG3D80shgZwLY0FjQfQRlnAXjn4vMWV6VtQjeyMkharvh2kM_4YdVCUGVvsR1vLAPjD46G3Uwuhmew8pXKTnS9y3LfQhZ8SF-i0ltbD5e9eodf7u93mMXrePjxt1s-RojQLkVaS84xrmXEhQBeEpkTwrNCFzhnjrGJSVlrmBaiKa3EQilRTqDkhFeOVoCsUH3OV6713UJeDM610U0mScsZZzjjLGWc54zwYro-GYaxa0P_vfyzpN_vYd6E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Güler, Umit Ozgür ; Derincek, Alihan ; Hersekli, Murat Ali ; Ozalay, Metin ; Cinar, Bekir Murat ; Acaroğlu, Emre</creator><creatorcontrib>Güler, Umit Ozgür ; Derincek, Alihan ; Hersekli, Murat Ali ; Ozalay, Metin ; Cinar, Bekir Murat ; Acaroğlu, Emre</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the present study was to compare calcium sulfate (CAS) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cements used for the augmentation of a failed pedicle screw with biomechanical pull-out strength (POS) testing.
Thirty lumbar vertebrae were harvested from 6 calves and bone mineral densities (BMD) were measured. Primary polyaxial pedicle screws were randomly inserted and pulled out and the POSs of the specimen were recorded. For revision, specimens were randomly assigned to the CAS-augmented pedicle screws group (Group 1) or PMMA-augmented pedicle screw group (Group 2). Pull-out tests were repeated to compare both groups.
Mean BMD of the specimens was 1.006 ± 0.116 g/cm(2). There were no statistically significant differences between BMD results of the two groups (p=0.116). For Group 1, mean POS of primary screws was 2,441.3 ± 936.4 N and was 2,499.5 ± 1,425.1 N after CAS augmentation, demonstrating no statistically significant difference (p=0.865). In Group 2, mean POS of the primary screws was 2,876.6 ± 926.6 N and significantly increased to 3,745.5 ± 1,299.2 N after PMMA augmentation (p=0.047). There was also a significant difference in mean POS between the CAS and PMMA groups (p=0.026).
Although CAS augmentation facilitates a revision screw POS as strong as that of primary screws, it is not as strong as PMMA augmentation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1017-995X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2014.3193</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24747630</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Turkey</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone Cements - pharmacology ; Bone Density ; Calcium Sulfate - pharmacology ; Cattle ; Cementation - instrumentation ; Cementation - methods ; Comparative Effectiveness Research ; Equipment Failure ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - adverse effects ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation ; Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Materials Testing - methods ; Models, Anatomic ; Pedicle Screws - adverse effects ; Polymethyl Methacrylate - pharmacology</subject><ispartof>Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2014, Vol.48 (2), p.202-206</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-dca6656da5699ed813219658d8d74464b4aabda78ecb6d964b82d3ef611b46b93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24747630$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Güler, Umit Ozgür</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Derincek, Alihan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hersekli, Murat Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozalay, Metin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinar, Bekir Murat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acaroğlu, Emre</creatorcontrib><title>Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation</title><title>Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica</title><addtitle>Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc</addtitle><description>The aim of the present study was to compare calcium sulfate (CAS) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cements used for the augmentation of a failed pedicle screw with biomechanical pull-out strength (POS) testing.
Thirty lumbar vertebrae were harvested from 6 calves and bone mineral densities (BMD) were measured. Primary polyaxial pedicle screws were randomly inserted and pulled out and the POSs of the specimen were recorded. For revision, specimens were randomly assigned to the CAS-augmented pedicle screws group (Group 1) or PMMA-augmented pedicle screw group (Group 2). Pull-out tests were repeated to compare both groups.
Mean BMD of the specimens was 1.006 ± 0.116 g/cm(2). There were no statistically significant differences between BMD results of the two groups (p=0.116). For Group 1, mean POS of primary screws was 2,441.3 ± 936.4 N and was 2,499.5 ± 1,425.1 N after CAS augmentation, demonstrating no statistically significant difference (p=0.865). In Group 2, mean POS of the primary screws was 2,876.6 ± 926.6 N and significantly increased to 3,745.5 ± 1,299.2 N after PMMA augmentation (p=0.047). There was also a significant difference in mean POS between the CAS and PMMA groups (p=0.026).
Although CAS augmentation facilitates a revision screw POS as strong as that of primary screws, it is not as strong as PMMA augmentation.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone Cements - pharmacology</subject><subject>Bone Density</subject><subject>Calcium Sulfate - pharmacology</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cementation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Cementation - methods</subject><subject>Comparative Effectiveness Research</subject><subject>Equipment Failure</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Internal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Materials Testing - methods</subject><subject>Models, Anatomic</subject><subject>Pedicle Screws - adverse effects</subject><subject>Polymethyl Methacrylate - pharmacology</subject><issn>1017-995X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kM1KxDAUhbNQnHF061LyAq1Nk6aNu2HwD4QBGcFdSZPbaST9IUmVvoWP7NRRN_fCufccDh9CVySJqWDsZr3d7eI0ISymRNATtCQJySMhsrcFOvf-PUlYJig9Q4uU5SznNFmirxfwoXcymL7DfY2H0dqoHwP2wUG3D80shgZwLY0FjQfQRlnAXjn4vMWV6VtQjeyMkharvh2kM_4YdVCUGVvsR1vLAPjD46G3Uwuhmew8pXKTnS9y3LfQhZ8SF-i0ltbD5e9eodf7u93mMXrePjxt1s-RojQLkVaS84xrmXEhQBeEpkTwrNCFzhnjrGJSVlrmBaiKa3EQilRTqDkhFeOVoCsUH3OV6713UJeDM610U0mScsZZzjjLGWc54zwYro-GYaxa0P_vfyzpN_vYd6E</recordid><startdate>2014</startdate><enddate>2014</enddate><creator>Güler, Umit Ozgür</creator><creator>Derincek, Alihan</creator><creator>Hersekli, Murat Ali</creator><creator>Ozalay, Metin</creator><creator>Cinar, Bekir Murat</creator><creator>Acaroğlu, Emre</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2014</creationdate><title>Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation</title><author>Güler, Umit Ozgür ; Derincek, Alihan ; Hersekli, Murat Ali ; Ozalay, Metin ; Cinar, Bekir Murat ; Acaroğlu, Emre</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-dca6656da5699ed813219658d8d74464b4aabda78ecb6d964b82d3ef611b46b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone Cements - pharmacology</topic><topic>Bone Density</topic><topic>Calcium Sulfate - pharmacology</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cementation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Cementation - methods</topic><topic>Comparative Effectiveness Research</topic><topic>Equipment Failure</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Internal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Materials Testing - methods</topic><topic>Models, Anatomic</topic><topic>Pedicle Screws - adverse effects</topic><topic>Polymethyl Methacrylate - pharmacology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Güler, Umit Ozgür</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Derincek, Alihan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hersekli, Murat Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozalay, Metin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinar, Bekir Murat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acaroğlu, Emre</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Güler, Umit Ozgür</au><au>Derincek, Alihan</au><au>Hersekli, Murat Ali</au><au>Ozalay, Metin</au><au>Cinar, Bekir Murat</au><au>Acaroğlu, Emre</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation</atitle><jtitle>Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc</addtitle><date>2014</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>202</spage><epage>206</epage><pages>202-206</pages><issn>1017-995X</issn><abstract>The aim of the present study was to compare calcium sulfate (CAS) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cements used for the augmentation of a failed pedicle screw with biomechanical pull-out strength (POS) testing.
Thirty lumbar vertebrae were harvested from 6 calves and bone mineral densities (BMD) were measured. Primary polyaxial pedicle screws were randomly inserted and pulled out and the POSs of the specimen were recorded. For revision, specimens were randomly assigned to the CAS-augmented pedicle screws group (Group 1) or PMMA-augmented pedicle screw group (Group 2). Pull-out tests were repeated to compare both groups.
Mean BMD of the specimens was 1.006 ± 0.116 g/cm(2). There were no statistically significant differences between BMD results of the two groups (p=0.116). For Group 1, mean POS of primary screws was 2,441.3 ± 936.4 N and was 2,499.5 ± 1,425.1 N after CAS augmentation, demonstrating no statistically significant difference (p=0.865). In Group 2, mean POS of the primary screws was 2,876.6 ± 926.6 N and significantly increased to 3,745.5 ± 1,299.2 N after PMMA augmentation (p=0.047). There was also a significant difference in mean POS between the CAS and PMMA groups (p=0.026).
Although CAS augmentation facilitates a revision screw POS as strong as that of primary screws, it is not as strong as PMMA augmentation.</abstract><cop>Turkey</cop><pmid>24747630</pmid><doi>10.3944/AOTT.2014.3193</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1017-995X |
| ispartof | Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2014, Vol.48 (2), p.202-206 |
| issn | 1017-995X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_3944_AOTT_2014_3193 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Animals Biomechanical Phenomena Bone Cements - pharmacology Bone Density Calcium Sulfate - pharmacology Cattle Cementation - instrumentation Cementation - methods Comparative Effectiveness Research Equipment Failure Fracture Fixation, Internal - adverse effects Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation Lumbar Vertebrae - physiology Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Materials Testing - methods Models, Anatomic Pedicle Screws - adverse effects Polymethyl Methacrylate - pharmacology |
| title | Restoration of pull-out strength of the failed pedicle screw: biomechanical comparison of calcium sulfate vs polymethylmethacrylate augmentation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T02%3A53%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Restoration%20of%20pull-out%20strength%20of%20the%20failed%20pedicle%20screw:%20biomechanical%20comparison%20of%20calcium%20sulfate%20vs%20polymethylmethacrylate%20augmentation&rft.jtitle=Acta%20orthopaedica%20et%20traumatologica%20turcica&rft.au=G%C3%BCler,%20Umit%20Ozg%C3%BCr&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=202&rft.epage=206&rft.pages=202-206&rft.issn=1017-995X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3944/AOTT.2014.3193&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E24747630%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/24747630&rfr_iscdi=true |