Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model

Aim of this biomechanical investigation was to compare the biomechanical effects of a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK and titanium pedicle screw/rod device in osteoporotic human cadaveric spine. Ten human fresh-frozen cadaveric lumbar spines (L1-L5) have been used and were randomized into two groups ac...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2020-12, Vol.80, p.105153-105153, Article 105153
Hauptverfasser: Oikonomidis, Stavros, Greven, Johannes, Bredow, Jan, Eh, Madita, Prescher, Andreas, Fischer, Horst, Thüring, Johannes, Eysel, Peer, Hildebrand, Frank, Kobbe, Philipp, Scheyerer, Max Joseph, Herren, Christian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim of this biomechanical investigation was to compare the biomechanical effects of a carbon fiber reinforced PEEK and titanium pedicle screw/rod device in osteoporotic human cadaveric spine. Ten human fresh-frozen cadaveric lumbar spines (L1-L5) have been used and were randomized into two groups according to the bone mineral density. A monosegmental posterior instrumentation (L3-L4) using titanium pedicle screws and rods was carried out in group A and using carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in group B. A cyclic loading test was performed at a frequency of 3 Hz, starting with a peak of 500 N for the first 2000 cycles, up to 950 N for 100,000 cycles under a general preload with 100 N. All specimens were evaluated with regard to a potential collapse of the implanted pedicle screws. A CT supported digital measurement of cavities around the pedicle at 3 defined measuring points was performed. Finally, the maximum zero-time failure load of all specimens was determined using a universal testing machine (80% Fmax). Regarding maximum axial force (group A: 2835 N, group B: 3006 N, p = 0.595) and maximum compression (group A: 11.67 mm, group B: 15.15 mm, p = 0.174) no statistical difference could be shown between the two groups. However, significant smaller cavity formation around the pedicle screws could be observed in group B (p = 0.007), especially around the screw tip (p 
ISSN:0268-0033
1879-1271
DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105153