Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spinal rod gripping capacity: how do 5.5/6.0-mm dual-diameter screws compare?

  • Biomechanics
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design

Biomechanical comparative study.

Objective

To evaluate pedicle screw gripping capacity from five suppliers, comparing single-diameter (S-D) systems using 5.5-mm-diameter rods to dual-diameter (D-D) systems accepting 5.5- and 6.0-mm-diameter rods with both cobalt chromium (CoCr) and titanium alloy (Ti) rods.

Summary of background data

D-D systems have become increasingly prevalent; however, these systems theoretically may compromise spinal rod gripping, particularly when a smaller-diameter rod is used within a D-D pedicle screw.

Methods

D-D pedicle screw systems from three suppliers (accepting 5.5- and 6.0-mm-diameter, Ti and CoCr rods), and S-D systems from two suppliers (accepting 5.5-mm-diameter, Ti and CoCr rods) were tested on an MTS MiniBionix machine. Axial load was applied in line with the rod to measure axial gripping capacity (AGC), and torsional load was applied to measure torsional gripping capacity (TGC) for each rod material and diameter. AGC and TGC were compared between D-D and S-D constructs, suppliers, rod diameters, and materials with subsequent classification and regression tree (CART) analysis.

Results

5.5-mm rods within D-D screws were no weaker than 5.5-mm rods in S-D systems for AGC (dual > single, p = 0.043) and TGC (p = 0.066). As a whole, D-D systems had greater AGC than S-D systems (p = 0.01). AGC differed between suppliers (p < 0.001). No rod diameter (p = 0.227) or material (p = 0.131) effect emerged. With CART analysis, Supplier was the most significant predictor for greater AGC. As a whole, D-D systems had greater TGC than S-D systems (p = 0.008). TGC differed between suppliers (p < 0.001). Rod diameter was a significant predictor of higher TGC (6.0 > 5.5 mm, p = 0.002). CoCr rods had greater TGC than Ti (p < 0.001). CART analysis revealed that Supplier and CoCr material were significant predictors for increased TGC.

Conclusions

Despite 30%–70% variability in gripping capacity due to rod supplier and material, overall D-D pedicle screw systems had similar AGC and TGC as S-D systems.

Level of evidence

N/A.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bartley CE, Yaszay B, Bastrom TP et al (2017) Perioperative and delayed major complications following surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 99:1206–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kepler CK, Meredith DS, Green DW et al (2012) Long-term outcomes after posterior spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Curr Opin Pediatr 24:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lykissas MG, Jain VV, Nathan ST et al (2013) Mid- to long-term outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after instrumented posterior spinal fusion: a meta-analysis. Spine 38:E113–E119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Murphy RF, Mooney JF (2016) Complications following spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:462–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dobbs MB, Lenke LG, Kim YJ et al (2006) Selective posterior thoracic fusions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of hooks versus pedicle screws. Spine 31:2400–2404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Cho SK et al (2004) Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hook instrumentation in posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 29:2040–2048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Faraj AA, Webb JK (1997) Early complications of spinal pedicle screw. Eur Spine J 6:324–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Katonis P, Christoforakis J, Kontakis G et al (2003) Complications and problems related to pedicle screw fixation of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 411:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rawall S, Mohan K, Nagad P et al (2011) Role of “low cost Indian implants” in our practice: our experience with 1,572 pedicle screws. Eur Spine J 20:1607–1612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schroerlucke SR, Steklov N, Mundis GM Jr et al (2014) How does a novel monoplanar pedicle screw perform biomechanically relative to monoaxial and polyaxial designs? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:2826–2832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fogel GR, Reitman CA, Liu W et al (2003) Physical characteristics of polyaxial-headed pedicle screws and biomechanical comparison of load with their failure. Spine 28:470–473

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amaritsakul Y, Chao CK, Lin J (2014) Biomechanical evaluation of bending strength of spinal pedicle screws, including cylindrical, conical, dual core and double dual core designs using numerical simulations and mechanical tests. Med Eng Phys 36:1218–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Christodoulou E, Chinthakunta S, Reddy D et al (2015) Axial pullout strength comparison of different screw designs: fenestrated screw, dual outer diameter screw and standard pedicle screw. Scoliosis 10:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dalal A, Upasani VV, Bastrom TP et al (2011) Apical vertebral rotation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of uniplanar and polyaxial pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:251–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Demura S, Murakami H, Hayashi H et al (2015) Influence of rod contouring on rod strength and stiffness in spine surgery. Orthopedics 38:e520–e523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Essig DA, Miller CP, Xiao M et al (2012) Biomechanical comparison of endplate forces generated by uniaxial screws and monoaxial pedicle screws. Orthopedics 35:e1528–e1532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ha KY, Hwang SC, Whang TH (2013) Biomechanical stability according to different configurations of screws and rods. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:155–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lamerain M, Bachy M, Delpont M et al (2014) CoCr rods provide better frontal correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by all-pedicle screw fixation. Eur Spine J 23:1190–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Serhan H, Mhatre D, Newton P et al (2013) Would CoCr rods provide better correctional forces than stainless steel or titanium for rigid scoliosis curves? J Spinal Disord Tech 26:E70–E74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang X, Aubin CE, Crandall D et al (2011) Biomechanical comparison of force levels in spinal instrumentation using monoaxial versus multi degree of freedom postloading pedicle screws. Spine 36:E95–E104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang X, Aubin CE, Crandall D et al (2012) Biomechanical analysis of 4 types of pedicle screws for scoliotic spine instrumentation. Spine 37:E823–E835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang X, Aubin CE, Labelle H et al (2012) Biomechanical analysis of corrective forces in spinal instrumentation for scoliosis treatment. Spine 37:E1479–E1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Demir T, Camuşcuz N (2012) Design and performance of spinal fixation pedicle screw system. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 226:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. ASTM Standard F1798-97 (2008) Evaluating the Static and Fatigue Properties of Interconnection Mechanisms and Subassemblies Used in Spinal Arthrodesis Implants. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/F1798-97R08. https://www.astm.org

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Tracey Bastrom, MS, for statistical analysis and Samantha Farnsworth and Claire Warrenfelt for testing assistance.

Funding

This study was funded by the Division of Orthopedics, Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego. Implants (pedicle screws, set screws, rods) and use of instrumentation (torque wrench) were provided by Alphatec, DePuy Synthes, K2M, NuVasive, OrthoPediatrics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Dylan G. Kluck, Burt Yaszay, Vidyadhar V. Upasani & Peter O. Newton

  2. Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego, 3020 Children’s Way, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA

    Christine L. Farnsworth, Megan E. Jeffords, Nikolas E. Marino, Burt Yaszay, Vidyadhar V. Upasani & Peter O. Newton

Authors
  1. Dylan G. Kluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine L. Farnsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Megan E. Jeffords
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nikolas E. Marino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Burt Yaszay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vidyadhar V. Upasani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter O. Newton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter O. Newton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

DGK (none), CLF (none), MEJ (none), NEM (none), BY (grants and personal fees from K2M, DePuy Synthes Spine, and NuVasive; personal fees from Medtronic, Orthopediatrics, Stryker, Globus, and Biogen; grants from Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation, outside the submitted work; in addition, BY has a patent K2M with royalties paid), VVU (personal fees from DePuy Synthes Spine and OrthoPediatrics, outside the submitted work), PON (other from DePuy Synthes, K2M, OrthoPediatrics, NuVasive, and AlphaTec, during the conduct of the study; grants and other from Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation; other from Rady Children’s Specialists; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from DePuy Synthes Spine and K2M; grants and other from SRS; grants from EOS Imaging; personal fees from Thieme Publishing; grants from NuVasive; other from Electrocore; personal fees from Cubist; other from International Pediatric Orthopedic Think Tank; grants, nonfinancial support, and other from Orthopediatrics; grants and nonfinancial support from Alphatech; grants from Mazor Robotics, outside the submitted work; in addition, PON has a patent “Anchoring Systems and Methods for Correcting Spinal Deformities” [8540754] with royalties paid to DePuy Synthes Spine; a patent “Low Profile Spinal Tethering Systems” [8123749] licensed to DePuy Spine, Inc.; a patent “Screw Placement Guide” [7981117] licensed to DePuy Spine, Inc.; a patent “Compressor for Use in Minimally Invasive Surgery” [7189244] licensed to DePuy Spine, Inc.; and a patent “Posterior Spinal Fixation” pending to K2M).

IRB statement

This project does not involve live humans or animals; so IRB and IACUC approval are not necessary.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kluck, D.G., Farnsworth, C.L., Jeffords, M.E. et al. Spinal rod gripping capacity: how do 5.5/6.0-mm dual-diameter screws compare?. Spine Deform 8, 25–32 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00028-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-020-00028-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation