A biomechanical comparison of polymethylmethacrylate-reinforced and expansive pedicle screws in pedicle-screw revisions

dc.contributor.authorBostan, Bora
dc.contributor.authorEsenkaya, Irfan
dc.contributor.authorGunes, Taner
dc.contributor.authorErdem, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorAsci, Murat
dc.contributor.authorKelestemur, M. Halidun
dc.contributor.authorSen, Cengiz
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T17:14:15Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Different techniques and choices exist for revision of pedicle screws, two of which are pedicle screw combined with cement augmentation and expansive pedicle screw fixation. This biomechanical study was designed to compare the pullout strengths of two different revision techniques. Methods: Fourteen lumbar vertebrae obtained from four calves (mean age 15 months) were divided into two groups equal in number. Monoaxial 6.0-mm pedicle screws were inserted into the right pedicles, and axial pullout testing was performed at a rate of 10 mm/min and failure strengths were recorded. Revision was performed with the same-sized pedicle screws reinforced with polymethylmethacrylate in group 1, and with 7.0-mm expansive pedicle screws in group 2, and pullout testing was repeated to record maximum revision pullout strengths. Results: The mean pullout strengths recorded before and after revision were significantly different in both groups, being 2,162.9 +/- 718.5 N and 2,794.3 +/- 979.2 N in group 1 (p=0.041) and 2,605.0 +/- 487.6 N and 3,327.1 +/- 640.8 N in group 2 (p=0.012), respectively. However, the mean pullout strengths recorded before and after revision did not differ significantly between the two groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Our results showed that expansive pedicle screws 1 mm larger in diameter provide similar pullout strengths to those of same-sized, polymethylmethacrylate-reinforced screws in revision of pedicle screw fixation, suggesting that they can be preferred with the additional advantages of ease of application and avoiding risks for pedicle fracture and cement leakage.
dc.identifier.doi10.3944/AOTT.2009.272
dc.identifier.endpage276
dc.identifier.issn1017-995X
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-9683-1882
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8495-3161
dc.identifier.pmid19717948
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-77649214283
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage272
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2009.272
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/51748
dc.identifier.volume43
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000269083100015
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isotr
dc.publisherTurkish Assoc Orthopaedics Traumatology
dc.relation.ispartofActa Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.subjectBiomechanics
dc.subjectbone screws
dc.subjectcattle
dc.subjectlumbar vertebrae/surgery
dc.subjectspinal fusion/instrumentation
dc.subjectspine/surgery
dc.titleA biomechanical comparison of polymethylmethacrylate-reinforced and expansive pedicle screws in pedicle-screw revisions
dc.title.alternativePedikül vida revizyonlarinda polimetilmetakrilat ile güçlendirilmiş ve ucu genişleyebilen pedikül vidalarinin biyomekanik karşilaştirilmasi
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar