EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Bone density optimized pedicle screw instrumentation improves screw pull-out force in lumbar vertebrae

Sebastiano Caprara, Marie-Rosa Fasser, José Miguel Spirig, Jonas Widmer, Jess G. Snedeker, Mazda Farshad and Marco Senteler

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2022, vol. 25, issue 4, 464-474

Abstract: Pedicle screw instrumentation is performed in the surgical treatment of a wide variety of spinal pathologies. A common postoperative complication associated with this procedure is screw loosening. It has been shown that patient-specific screw fixation can be automated to match standard clinical practice and that failure can be estimated preoperatively using computed tomography images. Hence, we set out to optimize three-dimensional preoperative planning to achieve more mechanically robust screw purchase allowing deviation from intuitive, standard screw parameters. Toward this purpose, we employed a genetic algorithm optimization to find optimal screw sizes and trajectories by maximizing the CT derived bone mechanical properties. The method was tested on cadaveric lumbar vertebrae (L1 to L5) of four human spines (2 female/2 male; age range 60–78 years). The main boundary conditions were the predefined, level-dependent areas of possible screw entry points, as well as the automatically located pedicle structures. Finite element analysis was used to compare the genetic algorithm output to standard clinical planning of screw positioning in terms of the simulated pull-out strength. The genetic algorithm optimization successfully found screw sizes and trajectories that maximize the sum of the Young’s modulus within the screw’s volume for all 40 pedicle screws included in this study. Overall, there was a 26% increase in simulated pull-out strength for optimized compared to traditional screw trajectories and sizes. Our results indicate that optimizing pedicle screw instrumentation in lumbar vertebrae based on bone quality measures improves screw purchase as compared to traditional instrumentation.

Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10255842.2021.1959558 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:25:y:2022:i:4:p:464-474

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/gcmb20

DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2021.1959558

Access Statistics for this article

Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering is currently edited by Director of Biomaterials John Middleton

More articles in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-20
Handle: RePEc:taf:gcmbxx:v:25:y:2022:i:4:p:464-474