The benefit of cement-augmented pedicle screws for revision surgery in osteoporotic bone : a cadaveric study

dc.contributor.authorKafchitsas, Konstantinos
dc.contributor.authorKontovazainitis, George
dc.contributor.authorDiaremes, Panagiotis
dc.contributor.authorDrees, Philipp
dc.contributor.authorWinkler, Sebastian
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-26T12:47:41Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractPurpose Increasing numbers of spine surgery cases and an aging society led to challenges during revision surgery with osteoporotic bone. Safe and stable operative techniques are required. Methods In this ex vivo study, human lumbar vertebrae were prepared and then screened for assessing bone density. Eighteen donors (65 vertebrae) with osteoporotic conditions were included. Primary dorsal instrumentation was performed using either standard pedicle screws (6.35 mm diameter; Group A, n = 50) or vertebroplasty screws (VT, 6.35 mm; Group B, n = 15). This was followed by a standardized pull-out test cycle, after which the vertebrae of group A exhibited pedicle perforations replicating revision conditions. Subsequently, 50 vertebrae from Group A were reassigned to simulate revision conditions and divided into two subgroups (n = 25 each): Group A1 received conventional pedicle screws with an increased diameter (7.5 mm), while Group A2 was treated with cement-augmented pedicle screws (VT, 6.35 mm). A second pull-out test was performed, and statistical analysis was conducted. Results The specimens with conventional screws had a lower mean pull-out strength compared to primarily cement-augmented screws during the first pull-out cycle 662.8 ± 365.1 N vs. 1066.1 ± 213.7 N. In the revision model, cement-augmented screws (Group A2) demonstrated a significant higher median pull-out strength compared to larger-diameter conventional screws (Group A1) (687.5 N [IQR: 448.8–1137.5 N]; vs. 486.5 N [IQR: 338.8–605.0 N]). Conclusion In this ex vivo revision model of osteoporotic bone, increasing screw diameter alone resulted in reduced pull-out strength compared to primary instrumentation, whereas cement-augmented pedicle screws consistently demonstrated superior fixation in both test cycles. These findings highlight the limited effectiveness of increasing screw diameter under revision conditions and support cement augmentation as a biomechanically advantageous strategy in osteoporotic bone, while clinical validation remains necessary.en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-16228
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/16249
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsCC-BY-4.0
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizinde_DE
dc.subject.ddc610 Medical sciencesen_EN
dc.titleThe benefit of cement-augmented pedicle screws for revision surgery in osteoporotic bone : a cadaveric studyen_GB
dc.typeZeitschriftenaufsatzde_DE
jgu.apc.netprice1890,78
jgu.apc.price2023,13
jgu.apc.taxrate7
jgu.apc.transformationcontractSpringer (DEAL)
jgu.dfg.year2026
jgu.identifier.uuid64cd78ae-0467-4cd8-b7a4-76b2e99a7738
jgu.journal.titleBMC musculoskeletal disorders
jgu.journal.volume27
jgu.nationalcurrency.eur1890,78
jgu.organisation.departmentFB 04 Medizinde_DE
jgu.organisation.nameJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainzde_DE
jgu.organisation.number2700
jgu.organisation.placeMainz
jgu.organisation.rorhttps://ror.org/023b0x485
jgu.pages.alternative418
jgu.publisher.doi10.1186/s12891-026-09971-y
jgu.publisher.eissn1471-2474
jgu.publisher.nameBioMed Central
jgu.publisher.placeLondon
jgu.publisher.year2026
jgu.relation.IsVersionOf10.1186/s12891-026-09971-y
jgu.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_GB
jgu.subject.ddccode610
jgu.subject.dfgLebenswissenschaftende_DE
jgu.type.contenttypeScientific articleen_GB
jgu.type.dinitypeArticleen_GB
jgu.type.resourceTexten_GB
jgu.type.versionPublished versionen_GB

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
the_benefit_of_cementaugmente-20260826124741777215.pdf
Size:
2.18 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections