Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 29, 2025
An Anesthesia, Surgery, and Harvest Method for the Evaluation of Transpedicular Screws Using an In Vivo Porcine Lumbar Spine Model
Published on: May 31, 2017
Biomechanical strength comparison of pedicle screw augmentation using poly-dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (P-DCPD) and
Alberto Criado1, Sanar Yokhana1, Tahsin Rahman2
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Detroit Medical Center, 4201 St Antoine St, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA.
Study Design:
A basic science, hypothesis-driven experimental study of the biomechanics of two bone cements in their ability to augment pedicle screws in bone foam.
Objective:
The purpose of our study was to compare the pullout and torque resistance of conventional pedicle screws (CPS) augmented with either polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or poly-dicalcium phosphate dihydrate (P-DCPD) cement in polyurethane foam blocks mimicking osteoporotic bone. P-DCPD cement has attractive safety characteristics such as non-exothermic curing and drug-eluting capacity. PMMA cement lacks these safety features yet is the current standard in pedicle screw augmentation.
Methods:
Standardized low-density polyurethane open-cell foam blocks were instrumented with conventional pedicle screws and categorized into three groups of six each. Group 1 was the control group and no cement was used. Groups 2 and 3 were augmented with PMMA and P-DCPD, respectively. An Instron machine applied an axial load to failure at a rate of 2 mm/min for 3 min and a torsional load to failure at a rate of 1°/s. Failure was defined by an evident drop in the load after maximum value.
Results:
Maximal pullout load for PMMA and P-DCPD was significantly greater than control (p < 0.0001). Interestingly, there was no significant difference in the pullout load to failure for the PMMA and P-DCPD groups. Analysis showed significant difference in torsional resistance between PMMA and P-DCPD, with PMMA having greater resistance (p = 0.00436).
Conclusions:
No difference was observed between PMMA and P-DCPD in pullout load to failure conducted in low-density open-cell, rigid foam blocks. Although a significant difference did exist in our torque analysis, the clinical significance of such a load on a native spine is questionable. Further investigation is warranted for this promising compound that seems to be comparable in pullout resistance to PMMA and offers attractive safety features.
Level Of Evidence:
Basic science, not applicable.
