• KOSASS
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Original Article

Is the Revision Screw for Re-insertion of Lateral Mass Screw Useful?: Biomechanical Cadaveric Experiment

Ki-Hyoung Koo1, S. Tim Yoon2, Jangyun Lee1, William C. Hutton2
Journal of Advanced Spine Surgery 2016;6(2):37-42.
Published online: December 31, 2016
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang-city, Gyeonggi, Korea
2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory Spine Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
3Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Corresponding author:  Ki-Hyoung Koo, Tel: +82-31-961-7294, Fax: +82-31-961-7290, 
Email: drkookh@gmail.com
  • 7 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
next

Objective
To compare the pull-out strength of polyaxial general screws and rescue screws when inserted into the lateral mass through cadaveric biomechanical experiment
Materials and Methods
Twenty three segments of the human cervical spine (from C3 to C7) were prepared. Two biomechanical studies were progressed. In the first experiment (13 segments), each segment was instrumented with 3.5×12 mm polyaxial screws on both sides. In one side, the inserted screw was removed and then the rescue screw was inserted to the same screw hole. In the second experiment (10 segments), all segments were instrumented with 3.5×12 mm polyaxial screws on both sides and all screws were removed. In one side, removed same screw was reinserted and in the other side, the rescue screw was inserted without change of the screw trajectory. All specimens were fixed to the specially designed frame with the cement. Universal Material Test Machine (Mini Bionix 858) was used to assess the pull-out strength of the screws. All data were compared with non-parametric paired test (Wilcoxon’s signed rank test).
Results
There was no crack or fracture around the screw hole. No significant difference was noted between the original screws (not reinserted) and the rescue screws in the first experiment (p=0.753). There is no significant difference between the same screw reinsertion and the conversion to the rescue screw (p=0.646).
Conclusions
The overall results of this study showed the conversion to the rescue screw with the same screw trajectory could offer no biomechanical advantage over reinsertion of the same screw. In case of secure screw hole after removal of the screw, the reinsertion of the same screw could be recommended.

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

Include:

Is the Revision Screw for Re-insertion of Lateral Mass Screw Useful?: Biomechanical Cadaveric Experiment
J Adv Spine Surg. 2016;6(2):37-42.   Published online December 31, 2016
Download Citation
Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:
  • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
  • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
Include:
  • Citation for the content below
Is the Revision Screw for Re-insertion of Lateral Mass Screw Useful?: Biomechanical Cadaveric Experiment
J Adv Spine Surg. 2016;6(2):37-42.   Published online December 31, 2016
Close
TOP