» Articles » PMID: 11740353

Improved Bone-screw Interface with Hydroxyapatite Coating: an in Vivo Study of Loaded Pedicle Screws in Sheep

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2001 Dec 12
PMID 11740353
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: An in vivo sheep model with loaded pedicle screws was used, wherein each animal served as its own control.

Objectives: To examine the effects of hydroxyapatite (HA) coating on the bone-to-implant interface in loaded spinal instrumentations.

Summary Of Background Data: Spinal instrumentation improves the healing rate in spinal fusion, but screw loosening constitutes a problem. HA coating of other implants has resulted in favorable effects on the bone-to-implant interface.

Methods: Nine sheep were operated on with destabilizing laminectomies at two levels: L2-L3 and L4-L5. Each level was stabilized separately with a four-screw instrumentation. Uncoated screws (stainless steel) or the same type of screws coated with plasma-sprayed HA were used in either the upper or the lower instrumentation in a randomized fashion. The animals were killed at 6 or 12 weeks after surgery. The specimens were embedded in resin, ground to approximately 10 microm, and stained with toluidine blue. Histomorphometric evaluation was carried out in a Leitz Aristoplan (Wetzlar, Germany) light microscope equipped with a Leitz Microvid unit.

Results: The average percentage of bone-to-implant contact after 6 weeks was 69 +/- 10 for the HA-coated screws and 18 +/- 11 for the uncoated screws (P < 0.03), and after 12 weeks 64 +/- 31 (HA-coated) and 9 +/- 13 (uncoated, P < 0.02). The average bone volume in the area close to the screw was significantly higher for the HA-coated screws at both 6 and 12 weeks.

Conclusions: HA coating improved the bone-to-implant interface significantly, indicating that HA coating can become useful for improving the purchase of pedicle screws.

Citing Articles

Implant Surface Technologies to Promote Spinal Fusion: A Narrative Review.

Croft A, Chanbour H, Chen J, Young M, Stephens B Int J Spine Surg. 2023; 17(S3):S35-S43.

PMID: 38050045 PMC: 10753326. DOI: 10.14444/8559.


Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.

Foley D, Hardacker P, McCarthy M Life (Basel). 2023; 13(10).

PMID: 37895410 PMC: 10608700. DOI: 10.3390/life13102028.


Evaluation of instrumentation and pedicle screw design for posterior lumbar fixation: A pre-clinical ovine model.

Witek L, Parente P, Torroni A, Greenberg M, Nayak V, Henri Hacquebord J JOR Spine. 2023; 6(2):e1245.

PMID: 37361331 PMC: 10285755. DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1245.


Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review.

Warburton A, Girdler S, Mikhail C, Ahn A, Cho S Neurospine. 2019; 17(1):101-110.

PMID: 31694360 PMC: 7136103. DOI: 10.14245/ns.1938296.148.


Bioactive pedicle screws prepared by chemical and heat treatments improved biocompatibility and bone-bonding ability in canine lumbar spines.

Akeda K, Yamaguchi S, Matsushita T, Kokubo T, Murata K, Takegami N PLoS One. 2018; 13(5):e0196766.

PMID: 29734349 PMC: 5937757. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196766.