Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

New means in spinal pedicle hook fixation

A biomechanical evaluation

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Pedicle hooks which are used as an anchorage for posterior spinal instrumentation may be subjected to considerable three-dimensional forces. In order to achieve stronger attachment to the implantation site, hooks using screws for additional fixation have been developed. The failure loads and mechanisms of three such devices have been experimentally determined on human thoracic vertebrae: the Universal Spine System (USS) pedicle hook with one screw, a prototype pedicle hook with two screws and the Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) pedicle hook with screw. The USS hooks use 3.2-mm self-tapping fixation screws which pass into the pedicle, whereas the CD hook is stabilised with a 3-mm set screw pressing against the superior part of the facet joint. A clinically established 5-mm pedicle screw was tested for comparison. A matched pair experimental design was implemented to evauluate these implants in constrained (series I) and rotationally unconstrained (series II) posterior pull-out tests. In the constrained tests the pedicle screw was the strongest implant, with an average pull-out force of 1650 N (SD 623 N). The prototype hook was comparable, with an average failure load of 1530 N (SD 414 N). The average pull-out force of the USS hook with one screw was 910 N (SD 243 N), not significantly different to the CD hook's average failure load of 740 N (SD 189 N). The result of the unconstrained tests were similar, with the prototype hook being the strongest device (average 1617 N, SD 652 N). However, in this series the difference in failure load between the USS hook with one screw and the CD hook was significant. Average failure loads of 792 N (SD 184 N) for the USS hook and 464 N (SD 279 N) for the CD hook were measured. A pedicular fracture in the plane of the fixation screw was the most common failure mode for USS hooks. The hooks usually did not move from their site of implantation, suggesting that they may be well-suited for the socalled segmental spinal correction technique as used in scoliosis surgery. In contrast, the CD hook disengaged by translating caudally from its site of implantation in all cases, suggesting a mechanical instability. The differences in observed hook failure modes may be a function of the type and number of additional fixation screws used. These results suggest that additional screw fixation allows stable attachment of pedicle hooks to their implantation site. Hooks using additional fixation screws passing obliquely into the pedicle apparently provide the most rigid attachment. The second fixation screw of the prototype hook almost doubles the fixation strength. Thus, the prototype hook might be considered as an alternative to the pepdicle screw, especially in the upper thoracic region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. An HS, Lim TH, Enanich C, Hasanoglu KY, McGrady L (1993) Strength of the anterior vertebral screw fixation in relation to bone mineral density. BED Vol 24, Bioengineering Conference ASME, pp 469–471

  2. Benzel EC (1993) Short-segment compression instrumentation for selected thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: the short-rod/two claw technique. J Neurosurg 79:335–340

    Google Scholar 

  3. Coe JD, Warden KE, Herzig MA, McAfee PC (1990) Influence of bone mineral density on the fixation of thoracolumbar implants — a comparative study of transpedicular screws, laminar hooks and spinous process wires. Spine 15:902–907

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cook SD, Barrack RL, Georgette FS, Whitecloud TS, Burke SW, Skinner HB, Renz EA (1985) An analysis of failed Harington rods. Spine 10:313–316

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cotrel Y, Dubousset J (1984) A new technique of spine fixation by a posterior approach in the treatment of scoliosis (in Franch). Rev Chir Orthop 70:489–494

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cotrel Y, Dubousset J, Guillaumat M (1988) New universal instrumentation in spinal surgery. Clin Orthop 227:10–23

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eggli S, Schläpfer F, Angst M, Witschger P, Aebi M (1992) Biomechanical testing of three newly developed transpedicular multisegmental fixation systems. Eur Spine J 1:109–116

    Google Scholar 

  8. Freedman LS, Houghton GR, Evans M (1986) Cadaveric study comparing the stability of upper distraction hooks used in Harrington instrumentation. Spine 11:579–583

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guidera KJ, Hooten J, Weatherly W, Highhouse M, Castellvi A, Ogden JA, Pugh L, Cook S (1993) Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation-results in 52 patients. Spine 18:427–431

    Google Scholar 

  10. Halvorson TL, Kelly LA, Whitecloud TS (1991) Transpedicular screw pullout strengths in normal and osteoporotic human spines. Trans Orthop Res Soc 16:24

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington PR (1962) Treatment of scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 44:591–610

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harrington PR, Dickson JH (1973) An eleven-year clinical investigation of Harrington instrumentation — a preliminary report on 578 cases. Clin Orthop 93:113–130

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs RR, Schläpfer F, Mathys R Jr, Nachemson A, Perren SM (1984) A locking hook spinal rod system for stabilization of fracture-dislocations and correction of deformities of the dorsolumbar spine: a biomechanic evaluation. Clin Orthop 189:168–177

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karjalainen M, Aho AJ, Katevuo K (1992) Operative treatment of unstable thoracolumbar fractures by the posterior approach with the use of Williams plates or Harrington rods. Int Orthop 16:219–222

    Google Scholar 

  15. Krag MH (1991) Biomechanics of thoracolumbar spinal fixation. Spine 16(3S):84–99

    Google Scholar 

  16. Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, DeCoster TA (1989) Depth of insertion of transpedicular vertebral screws into human vertebrae: effect upon screw-vertebra interface strength. J Spinal Disord 1:287–294

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lagrone MO, Bradford DS, Moe JH, Lonstein JE, winter RB, Ogilvie JW (1988) Treatment of symptomatic flatback after spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 70:569–580

    Google Scholar 

  18. Moran JM, Berg WS, Berry JL, Geiger JM, Steffee AD (1989) Transpedicular screw fixation. J Orthop Res 7:107–114

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nolte LP, Steffen R, Krämer J, Jergas M (1993) The fixateur interne: a comparative biomechanical investigation (in German). Akt Traumatol 23:20–26

    Google Scholar 

  20. Panjabi MM, Yamamoto I, Oxland TR, Crisco JJ, Freedman D (1991) Biomechanical stability of five pedicle screw fixation systems in a human lumbar spine instability model. Clin Biomech 6:197–205

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ruland CM, McAfee PC, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1991) Triangulation of pedicular instrumentation — a biomechanical analysis. Spine 16(6S):270–276

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sasso RC, Cotler HB (1993) Posterior instrumentation and fusion for unstable fractures and fracture-dislocations of the thoracic and lumbar spine — a comparative study of three fixation devices in 70 patients. Spine 18:450–460

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sell P, Collins M, Dove J (1988) Pedicle screws: axial pullout strength in the lumbar spine. Spine 13:1075–1076

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shufflebarger HL, Clark CE (1990) Complications of CD in idiopathic scoliosis. Presented at the combined meeting of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America and the European Pediatric Orthopaedic Society, Montreal, Canada

  25. Skinner R, Maybee J, Transfeldt E, Venter R, Chalmers W (1990) Experimental pullout testing and comparison of variables in transpedicular screw fixation — a biomechanical study. Spine 15:195–201

    Google Scholar 

  26. Van Ooy A, Geukers CWGM (1992) Results of CD operation in idiopathic scoliosis. Acta Orthop Belg 58(S1):129–133

    Google Scholar 

  27. Willers U, Hedlund R, Aaro S, Normelli H, Westman L (1993) Long-term results of Harrington instrumentation in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 18:713–717

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wittenberg RH, Shea M, Swartz DE, Lee KS, White AA III, Hayes WC (1991) Importance of bone mineral density in instrumented spine fusions. Spine 16:647–652

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wittenberg RH, Lee KS, Shea M, White AA III, Hayes WC (1993) Effect of screw diameter, insertion technique, and bone cement augmentation of pedicular screw fixation strength. Clin Orthop 296:278–287

    Google Scholar 

  30. zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH, Thomas JC, Holland WR, Field BT, Spencer CW (1986) A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop 203:99–112

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berlemann, U., Cripton, P., Nolte, L.P. et al. New means in spinal pedicle hook fixation. Eur Spine J 4, 114–122 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00278923

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00278923

Key words

Navigation