Augmenting Screw Technique to Prevent TLIF Cage Subsidence: A Biomechanical In Vitro Study

(1) Cage subsidence in spine surgery is a frequent clinical challenge. This study aimed to assess a novel screw augmentation technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in cadavers of reduced bone mineral density (BMD). (2) Forty human lumbar vertebrae (BMD 84.2 ± 24.4 mgHA/cm<sup>3</sup>, range 51-119 mgHA/cm<sup>3</sup>) were assigned to two groups: augmenting screw group and control group. The augmentation technique comprised placement of two additional subcortical screws. Ten constructs per group were loaded with a quasi-static load-to-failure protocol and other ten were cyclically loaded. Failure modes were documented. (3) During the quasi-static load-to-failure testing, the augmenting screw technique showed a significantly higher failure load (1426.0 ± 863.6 N) versus the conventional technique in the control group (682.2 ± 174.5 N, <i>p</i> = 0.032). Cyclic loading revealed higher number of cycles and corresponding load until reaching 5 mm subsidence and significantly higher number of cycles and corresponding load until reaching 10 mm subsidence for the augmenting screw technique (9645 ± 3050; 1164.5 ± 305.0 N) versus the conventional technique in the control group (5395 ± 2340; 739.5 ± 234.0 N, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Failure modes were different and showed bending of the augmenting screws, followed by cut-out. (4) The investigated augmenting screw technique demonstrated higher failure loads and cycles to failure against cage subsidence compared to conventional cage placement. Failure modes were different between the two techniques and may lead to a different kind of complications.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioengineering
Published
2025-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12040337
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.01
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Augmenting Screw Technique to Prevent TLIF Cage Subsidence: A Biomechanical In Vitro Study

Boyko Gueorguiev, Markus Loibl, Ivan Zderic, Christian Rainer Wirtz et al.
1 citations
Bioengineering
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
2.01
article

Augmenting Screw Technique to Prevent TLIF Cage Subsidence: A Biomechanical In Vitro Study

Boyko Gueorguiev, Markus Loibl, Ivan Zderic, Christian Rainer Wirtz, T. Fekete, Daniel Haschtmann, Alina Jacob, Alicia Feist, R. Geoff Richards, Jan Caspar
article en
1 citations

Abstract

(1) Cage subsidence in spine surgery is a frequent clinical challenge. This study aimed to assess a novel screw augmentation technique for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in cadavers of reduced bone mineral density (BMD). (2) Forty human lumbar vertebrae (BMD 84.2 ± 24.4 mgHA/cm<sup>3</sup>, range 51-119 mgHA/cm<sup>3</sup>) were assigned to two groups: augmenting screw group and control group. The augmentation technique comprised placement of two additional subcortical screws. Ten constructs per group were loaded with a quasi-static load-to-failure protocol and other ten were cyclically loaded. Failure modes were documented. (3) During the quasi-static load-to-failure testing, the augmenting screw technique showed a significantly higher failure load (1426.0 ± 863.6 N) versus the conventional technique in the control group (682.2 ± 174.5 N, <i>p</i> = 0.032). Cyclic loading revealed higher number of cycles and corresponding load until reaching 5 mm subsidence and significantly higher number of cycles and corresponding load until reaching 10 mm subsidence for the augmenting screw technique (9645 ± 3050; 1164.5 ± 305.0 N) versus the conventional technique in the control group (5395 ± 2340; 739.5 ± 234.0 N, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Failure modes were different and showed bending of the augmenting screws, followed by cut-out. (4) The investigated augmenting screw technique demonstrated higher failure loads and cycles to failure against cage subsidence compared to conventional cage placement. Failure modes were different between the two techniques and may lead to a different kind of complications.

BioengineeringVol. 12(4)
Universität Ulm (DE), AO Foundation (CH), Schulthess-Klinik (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
2.01
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.