4.3 Article

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

Journal

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
Volume 80, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105153

Keywords

Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK; Osteoporosis; PEEK; Pedicle screw; Pedicle screw loosening; Titanium spinal implants

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: 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. Methods: 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% F-max). Findings: 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). Interpretation: Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK devices seem to be advantageous in terms of microscopic screw loosening compared to titanium devices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available