定量CT测量腰椎椎弓根螺钉钉道骨密度与椎体骨密度的对比研究

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1756 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective〓The primary objective of this study is to assess the feasibility and accuracy of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) in analyzing the cancellous bone mineral density (BMD) of vertebral bodies and pedicle screw trajectories.Additionally，the study aims to investigate the presence and extent of any significant differences in BMD between these two anatomical regions.Methods〓This retrospective study was conducted under the approval of our institutional review board，with the requirement for informed consent waived due to the non-interventional nature of the analysis.From October 2021 to April 2022，data from 99 consecutive participants ［48 males and 51 females，aged 20 to 80 years，with a mean age of (50.90±15.80)years］ who underwent lumbar QCT examinations at The Affiliated Ben Q Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were analyzed.For each participant，the pedicle screw trajectory (designated as G) was segmented into two parts：The intrapedicular segment (R1) and the intracorporal segment (R2).Using a commercial QCT BMD analysis system，BMD measurements were obtained from the trabecular bone of lumbar vertebrae 2，3，and 4，specifically focusing on R1，R2，and the vertebral body (R3).Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA to evaluate and compare the differences in BMD among R1，R2，and R3.To further examine the difference between the BMD of the entire pedicle screw trajectory (G) and that of the vertebral body (R3)，a paired t-test was conducted.A statistical significance level of P<0.01 was established for all tests employed in this study.ResultsThe analysis revealed significant differences in BMD between the segments of the pedicle screw trajectory.Specifically，the mean BMD of the intrapedicular segment (R1) was (173.66±71.84)mg/cm3，which was significantly higher than that of the intracorporal segment (R2) at (113.81±48.83)mg/cm3 (P＜0.01).Comparison of the mean BMD between R1 and the vertebral body ［R3，(118.94±47.24)mg/cm3］ also showed a significant difference (P＜0.01)，whereas the difference between R2 and R3 did not reach statistical significance (P＞0.01).Additionally，no significant differences were observed in BMD measurements between left and right sides ［left，(143.14±70.06)mg/cm3；right，(144.33±66.56)mg/cm3；P＞0.01］ or among different lumbar levels ［L2，(141.25±50.32)mg/cm3；L3，(138.31±56.85)mg/cm3；L4，(151.64±58.62)mg/cm3；P＞0.01］.Similarly，the average BMD of R3 did not significantly vary among lumbar levels 2，3，and 4 ［L2，(124.28±47.04)mg/cm3；L3，(115.36±46.34)mg/cm3；L4，(117.19±48.33)mg/cm3；P＞0.01］.Notably，the global BMD of the pedicle screw trajectory ［G，(143.73±55.49)mg/cm3］ was significantly higher than that of the vertebral body(R3) (P＜0.01).ConclusionQuantitative computed tomography (QCT) provides a reliable method for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) in both vertebral bodies and pedicle screw trajectories.Our findings demonstrate that the BMD of the global pedicle screw trajectory is significantly higher than that of the corresponding segmental vertebral body，highlighting the importance of considering these differences in pre-operative planning and assessment of bone quality for spinal fixation procedures.

Key words： quantitative computed tomography bone mineral density pedicle screw trajectory

Corresponding Authors: Zhu Xue’e

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Yu Tongbo
	Yu Hanxiao
	Yao Rong
	Yang Li
	Zhu Xue’e

Cite this article:

Yu Tongbo,Yu Hanxiao,Yao Rong, et al. Comparative Analysis of Cancellous Bone Mineral Density in Vertebral Bodies and Pedicle Screw Trajectories using Quantitative Computed Tomography[J]. sygkzz, 2024, 30(7): 600-.

URL:

http://www.sygkzz.com/EN/ OR http://www.sygkzz.com/EN/Y2024/V30/I7/600

［1］Link TM.Osteoporosis imaging：State of the art and advanced imaging［J］.Radiology，2012，263(1)：3-17.
［2］Okuyama K，Abe E，Suzuki T，et al.Influence of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation：A study of pedicle screw fixation augmenting posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients［J］.Spine J，2001，1(6)：402-407.
［3］刘亮，孙崇毅.提高骨质疏松症椎体椎弓根螺钉固定强度的技术研究进展［J］.医学综述，2020，26(1)：123-126.
［4］赵刚，周英杰，宋仁谦.骨水泥螺钉与可膨胀椎弓根螺钉治疗严重骨质疏松腰椎病手术的比较［J］.中国矫形外科杂志，2018，26(7)：599-603.
［5］曹春风，邱皓，王群波，等.膨胀式椎弓根螺钉治疗中老年骨质疏松性胸腰段脊柱爆裂性骨折的疗效［J］.中国老年学杂志，2017，37(7)：1702-1703.
［6］Vishnubhotla S，Mcgarry WB，Mahar AT，et al.A titanium expandable pedicle screw improves initial pullout strength as compared with standard pedicle screws［J］.The Spine Journal，2011，11(8)：777-781.
［7］Chen YL，Chen WC，Chou CW，et al.Biomechanical study of expandable pedicle screw fixation in severe osteoporotic bone comparing with conventional and cement-augmented pedicle screws［J］.Med Eng Phys，2014，36(11)：1416-1420.
［8］杜炜，钱明权.椎弓根螺钉置入椎体深度与其稳定性的生物力学分析［J］.中国组织工程研究，2016，20(9)：1289-1294.
［9］Yi S，Rim DC，Park SW，et al.Biomechanical comparisons of pull out strengths after pedicle screw augmentation with hydroxyapatite，calcium phosphate，or polymethylmethacrylate in the cadaveric spine［J］.World Neurosurg，2015，83(6)：976-981.
［10］Charles YP，Pelletier H，Hydier P，et al.Pullout characteristics of percutaneous pedicle screws with different cement augmentation methods in elderly spines：An in vitro biomechanical study［J］.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res，2015，101(3)：369-374.
［11］Mesfin A，Komanski CB，Khanna AJ.Failure of cement-augmented pedicle screws in the osteoporotic spine：A case report［J］.Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil，2013，4(3)：84-88.
［12］Shibasaki Y，Tsutsui S，Yamamoto E，et al.A bicortical pedicle screw in the caudad trajectory is the best option for the fixation of an osteoporotic vertebra：An in-vitro experimental study using synthetic lumbar osteoporotic bone models［J］.Clin Biomech (Bristol，Avon)，2020(72)：150-154.
［13］Li HM，Zhang RJ，Gao H，et al.Biomechanical fixation properties of the cortical bone trajectory in the osteoporotic lumbar spine［J］.World Neurosurg，2018(119)：e717-e727.
［14］Zhang QH，Tan SH，Chou SM.Investigation of fixation screw pull-out strength on human spine［J］.J Biomech，2004，37(4)：479-485.
［15］Hirano T，Hasegawa K，Takahashi HE，et al.Structural characteristics of the pedicle and its role in screw stability［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，1997，22(21)：2504-2509；2510.
［16］程晓光，袁慧书，程敬亮，等.骨质疏松的影像学与骨密度诊断专家共识［J］.中国骨与关节杂志，2020，9(9)：666-673.
［17］刘琳.DXA影像评价与骨密度测定联合诊断原发性骨质疏松症的临床探讨［J］.影像研究与医学应用，2019，3(17)：50-51.
［18］程晓光，王亮，曾强，等.中国定量CT(QCT)骨质疏松症诊断指南(2018)［J］.中国骨质疏松杂志，2019，25(6)：733-737.
［19］Wittenberg RH，Shea M，Swartz DE，et al.Importance of bone mineral density in instrumented spine fusions［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，1991，16(6)：647-652.
［20］Okuyama K，Sato K，Abe E，et al.Stability of transpedicle screwing for the osteoporotic spine.An in vitro study of the mechanical stability［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，1993，18(15)：2240-2245.
［21］Kumano K，Hirabayashi S，Ogawa Y，et al.Pedicle screws and bone mineral density［J］.Spine (Phila Pa 1976)，1994，19(10)：1157-1161.
［22］刘颖帆，齐向北，赵慧博，等.不同骨密度下椎弓根螺钉拔出力的有限元分析［J］.中华实验外科杂志，2021，38(7)：1246-1250.
［23］Wang Y，Videman T，Boyd SK，et al.The distribution of bone mass in the lumbar vertebrae：Are we measuring the right target?［J］.Spine J，2015，15(11)：2412-2416.
［24］Hohn EA，Chu B，Martin A，et al.The Pedicles are not the densest regions of the lumbar vertebrae：Implications for bone quality assessment and surgical treatment strategy［J］.Global Spine J，2017，7(6)：567-571.
［25］徐宁，赵鹏飞，丁贺宇，等.基于CT技术的颞骨解剖及耳科疾病应用研究进展［J］.中华医学杂志，2021，101(47)：3908-3911.
［26］Pemler P，Schneider U，Besserer J.Evaluation of the electron density phantom CIRS Model 62［J］.Z Med Phys，2001，11(1)：25-32.
［27］朱明，刘贵霞，李敬玉.CT扫描参数对CT值影响因素的实验研究［J］.中国中西医结合影像学杂志，2017，15(4)：473-475.