STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion on pull-out strength of pedicle screw in single and two screw-rod configurations. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Pedicle screw pull-out studies have involved single screw construct, whereas two screws and rod constructs are always used in spine fusions. Extrapolation of results using the single screw construct may lead to using expensive implants or increasing the fusion levels specifically in osteoporotic bones. METHODS: Single screw and two screw pull-out strength tests were carried out according to American Society for Testing and Materials F 543-07 on foam models to test the effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion using poly axial pedicle screws. RESULTS: Bone density was the most significant factor deciding the pull-out strength in both single and two screw constructs. The difference in pull-out strength between single screw and two screw configurations in extremely osteoporotic bone model (80 kg/m3) was 78%, whereas in the normal bone model it was 48%. Axial pull-out value was highest for the single screw configuration; in the two screw configuration the highest pull-out strength was at 10°-15°. There was an 18% reduction in pull-out strength due to reinsertion in single screw configuration. The reinsertion effect was insignificant in the two screw configuration. CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference in response of various factors on holding power of pedicle screw between single and two-screw configurations is evident. The percentage increase in pull-out strength between single and two screw constructs is higher for osteoporotic bone when compared to normal bone. Reinsertion has no significant effect on pull-out strength in the two screw rod configuration.
Bone Density ; Osteoporosis ; Pedicle Screws* ; Spine

STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion on pull-out strength of pedicle screw in single and two screw-rod configurations. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Pedicle screw pull-out studies have involved single screw construct, whereas two screws and rod constructs are always used in spine fusions. Extrapolation of results using the single screw construct may lead to using expensive implants or increasing the fusion levels specifically in osteoporotic bones. METHODS: Single screw and two screw pull-out strength tests were carried out according to American Society for Testing and Materials F 543-07 on foam models to test the effect of density, insertion angle and reinsertion using poly axial pedicle screws. RESULTS: Bone density was the most significant factor deciding the pull-out strength in both single and two screw constructs. The difference in pull-out strength between single screw and two screw configurations in extremely osteoporotic bone model (80 kg/m3) was 78%, whereas in the normal bone model it was 48%. Axial pull-out value was highest for the single screw configuration; in the two screw configuration the highest pull-out strength was at 10°-15°. There was an 18% reduction in pull-out strength due to reinsertion in single screw configuration. The reinsertion effect was insignificant in the two screw configuration. CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference in response of various factors on holding power of pedicle screw between single and two-screw configurations is evident. The percentage increase in pull-out strength between single and two screw constructs is higher for osteoporotic bone when compared to normal bone. Reinsertion has no significant effect on pull-out strength in the two screw rod configuration.
Bone Density ; Osteoporosis ; Pedicle Screws* ; Spine

Results: Pullout strength decreased by 36% when the size of the revision screw was increased by 1 mm, while it increased by 35% when the size of the revision screw was increased by 2 mm compared to the index screw value. While the morphologies of the load paths were similar in all cases, they differ between the two groups: the larger screw responded with generally elevated stiffer path than the smaller screw, suggesting that revision surgery using a larger screw has more purchase along the inserted body-pedicle axis. Conclusions A larger screw enhances strength and increases biomechanical stability in revision surgeries, although the final surgical decision is made by the clinician, which includes the patient’s anatomy and associated characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study. PURPOSE: To develop a predictive model for pullout strength. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Spine fusion surgeries are performed to correct joint deformities by restricting motion between two or more unstable vertebrae. The pedicle screw provides a corrective force to the unstable spinal segment and arrests motions at the unit that are being fused. To determine the hold of a screw, surgeons depend on a subjective perioperative feeling of insertion torque. The objective of the paper was to develop a machine learning based model using density of foam, insertion angle, insertion depth, and reinsertion to predict the pullout strength of pedicle screw. METHODS: To predict the pullout strength of pedicle screw, an experimental dataset of 48 data points was used as training data to construct a model based on different machine learning algorithms. A total of five algorithms were tested in the Weka environment and the performance was evaluated based on correlation coefficient and error matrix. A sensitive study of various parameters for obtaining the best combination of parameters for predicting the pullout strength was also preformed using the L9 orthogonal array of Taguchi Design of Experiments. RESULTS: Random forest performed the best with a correlation coefficient of 0.96, relative absolute error of 0.28, and root relative squared error of 0.29. The difference between the experimental and predicted value for the six test cases was not significant (p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This model can be used clinically for understanding the failure of pedicle screw pullout and pre-surgical planning for spine surgeon.