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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2020-12, Vol.80, p.105153-105153, Article 105153 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 105153 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 105153 |
| container_title | Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) |
| container_volume | 80 |
| creator | 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 |
| description | 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 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105153 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2436873512</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0268003320302722</els_id><sourcerecordid>2436873512</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-d8d5532dfd62e77db4083630ea4fdc64ebdf8f88b817062d032cb01e585e56e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkcmO1DAQhi0EYpqBV0DmxiWNlyzuI7SaRYwEBzhbjl1mqpXYwXYG8UI8J25lQBw5lVT1L7I_Ql5wtueM96_OezthGDHOYG_3gonLvuOdfEB2XA2HhouBPyQ7JnrVMCblFXmS85kx1opueEyupFDiIKTYkV9vthQT0JqJgvdgS6bR0yXmAgljogs4tBPQbBP8aEaTwVEMuaR1hlBMwRjomjF8owVLDVpnegcpr5lak8Z69DhCogkw-JhsdX8-nT7WCGoCvbTEJaZY0NK8YAB6u871YI0zNYbO0cH0lDzyZsrw7H5ek69vT1-O75ubT-8-HF_fNFYOQ2mccl0nhfOuFzAMbmyZkr1kYFrvbN_C6LzySo2KD6wXjklhR8ahUx10PXB5TV5uuUuK31fIRc-YLUyTCRDXrEUrezXIjosqPWxSm2LOCbxeEs4m_dSc6Qsmfdb_YNIXTHrDVL3P72vWcQb31_mHSxUcNwHUx94hJJ0tQqh_h6kC0i7if9T8Brvlrik</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2436873512</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>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</creator><creatorcontrib>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</creatorcontrib><description>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 < 0.001).
Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK devices seem to be advantageous in terms of microscopic screw loosening compared to titanium devices.
•Biomechanical study of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK and titanium instrumentations.•Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK leads to less microscopic screw loosening.•Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK shows biomechanical advantages in osteoporotic spine.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-0033</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1271</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105153</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32829232</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena ; Cadaver ; Carbon Fiber ; Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK ; Humans ; Ketones ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Mechanical Phenomena ; Middle Aged ; Osteoporosis ; Osteoporosis - surgery ; Pedicle screw ; Pedicle screw loosening ; Pedicle Screws ; PEEK ; Polyethylene Glycols ; Pressure ; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation ; Titanium ; Titanium spinal implants</subject><ispartof>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol), 2020-12, Vol.80, p.105153-105153, Article 105153</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-d8d5532dfd62e77db4083630ea4fdc64ebdf8f88b817062d032cb01e585e56e13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-d8d5532dfd62e77db4083630ea4fdc64ebdf8f88b817062d032cb01e585e56e13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003320302722$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32829232$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Oikonomidis, Stavros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greven, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bredow, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eh, Madita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prescher, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Horst</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thüring, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eysel, Peer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hildebrand, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobbe, Philipp</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheyerer, Max Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herren, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model</title><title>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</title><addtitle>Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)</addtitle><description>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 < 0.001).
Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK devices seem to be advantageous in terms of microscopic screw loosening compared to titanium devices.
•Biomechanical study of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK and titanium instrumentations.•Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK leads to less microscopic screw loosening.•Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK shows biomechanical advantages in osteoporotic spine.</description><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Carbon Fiber</subject><subject>Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ketones</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Mechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Osteoporosis</subject><subject>Osteoporosis - surgery</subject><subject>Pedicle screw</subject><subject>Pedicle screw loosening</subject><subject>Pedicle Screws</subject><subject>PEEK</subject><subject>Polyethylene Glycols</subject><subject>Pressure</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><subject>Titanium spinal implants</subject><issn>0268-0033</issn><issn>1879-1271</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkcmO1DAQhi0EYpqBV0DmxiWNlyzuI7SaRYwEBzhbjl1mqpXYwXYG8UI8J25lQBw5lVT1L7I_Ql5wtueM96_OezthGDHOYG_3gonLvuOdfEB2XA2HhouBPyQ7JnrVMCblFXmS85kx1opueEyupFDiIKTYkV9vthQT0JqJgvdgS6bR0yXmAgljogs4tBPQbBP8aEaTwVEMuaR1hlBMwRjomjF8owVLDVpnegcpr5lak8Z69DhCogkw-JhsdX8-nT7WCGoCvbTEJaZY0NK8YAB6u871YI0zNYbO0cH0lDzyZsrw7H5ek69vT1-O75ubT-8-HF_fNFYOQ2mccl0nhfOuFzAMbmyZkr1kYFrvbN_C6LzySo2KD6wXjklhR8ahUx10PXB5TV5uuUuK31fIRc-YLUyTCRDXrEUrezXIjosqPWxSm2LOCbxeEs4m_dSc6Qsmfdb_YNIXTHrDVL3P72vWcQb31_mHSxUcNwHUx94hJJ0tQqh_h6kC0i7if9T8Brvlrik</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Oikonomidis, Stavros</creator><creator>Greven, Johannes</creator><creator>Bredow, Jan</creator><creator>Eh, Madita</creator><creator>Prescher, Andreas</creator><creator>Fischer, Horst</creator><creator>Thüring, Johannes</creator><creator>Eysel, Peer</creator><creator>Hildebrand, Frank</creator><creator>Kobbe, Philipp</creator><creator>Scheyerer, Max Joseph</creator><creator>Herren, Christian</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model</title><author>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</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-d8d5532dfd62e77db4083630ea4fdc64ebdf8f88b817062d032cb01e585e56e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Carbon Fiber</topic><topic>Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ketones</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Mechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Osteoporosis</topic><topic>Osteoporosis - surgery</topic><topic>Pedicle screw</topic><topic>Pedicle screw loosening</topic><topic>Pedicle Screws</topic><topic>PEEK</topic><topic>Polyethylene Glycols</topic><topic>Pressure</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><topic>Titanium spinal implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Oikonomidis, Stavros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greven, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bredow, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eh, Madita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prescher, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Horst</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thüring, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eysel, Peer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hildebrand, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobbe, Philipp</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheyerer, Max Joseph</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herren, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Oikonomidis, Stavros</au><au>Greven, Johannes</au><au>Bredow, Jan</au><au>Eh, Madita</au><au>Prescher, Andreas</au><au>Fischer, Horst</au><au>Thüring, Johannes</au><au>Eysel, Peer</au><au>Hildebrand, Frank</au><au>Kobbe, Philipp</au><au>Scheyerer, Max Joseph</au><au>Herren, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model</atitle><jtitle>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>80</volume><spage>105153</spage><epage>105153</epage><pages>105153-105153</pages><artnum>105153</artnum><issn>0268-0033</issn><eissn>1879-1271</eissn><abstract>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 < 0.001).
Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK devices seem to be advantageous in terms of microscopic screw loosening compared to titanium devices.
•Biomechanical study of carbon fiber reinforced PEEK and titanium instrumentations.•Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK leads to less microscopic screw loosening.•Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK shows biomechanical advantages in osteoporotic spine.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32829232</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105153</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0268-0033 |
| ispartof | Clinical biomechanics (Bristol), 2020-12, Vol.80, p.105153-105153, Article 105153 |
| issn | 0268-0033 1879-1271 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2436873512 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Biomechanical Phenomena Cadaver Carbon Fiber Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK Humans Ketones Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Mechanical Phenomena Middle Aged Osteoporosis Osteoporosis - surgery Pedicle screw Pedicle screw loosening Pedicle Screws PEEK Polyethylene Glycols Pressure Spinal Fusion - instrumentation Titanium Titanium spinal implants |
| title | Biomechanical effects of posterior pedicle screw-based instrumentation using titanium versus carbon fiber reinforced PEEK in an osteoporotic spine human cadaver model |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T14%3A58%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biomechanical%20effects%20of%20posterior%20pedicle%20screw-based%20instrumentation%20using%20titanium%20versus%20carbon%20fiber%20reinforced%20PEEK%20in%20an%20osteoporotic%20spine%20human%20cadaver%20model&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20biomechanics%20(Bristol)&rft.au=Oikonomidis,%20Stavros&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=80&rft.spage=105153&rft.epage=105153&rft.pages=105153-105153&rft.artnum=105153&rft.issn=0268-0033&rft.eissn=1879-1271&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105153&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2436873512%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2436873512&rft_id=info:pmid/32829232&rft_els_id=S0268003320302722&rfr_iscdi=true |