Despite correct implantation of the patellar implants and largely unchanged patellofemoral offset, a highly significant increase in pressure after patellar resurfacing was measured. Therefore, from a biomechanical point of view, the preservation of the native patella seems reasonable if there is no higher grade patellar cartilage damage.

ObjectivesCement augmentation of pedicle screws could be used to improve screw stability, especially in osteoporotic vertebrae. However, little is known concerning the influence of different screw types and amount of cement applied. Therefore, the aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of cement augmentation on the screw pull-out force in osteoporotic vertebrae, comparing different pedicle screws (solid and fenestrated) and cement volumes (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL).Materials and MethodsA total of 54 osteoporotic human cadaver thoracic and lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws (uncemented, solid cemented or fenestrated cemented) and augmented with high-viscosity PMMA cement (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL). The insertion torque and bone mineral density were determined. Radiographs and CT scans were undertaken to evaluate cement distribution and cement leakage. Pull-out testing was performed with a material testing machine to measure failure load and stiffness. The paired t-test was used to compare the two screws within each vertebra.ResultsMean failure load was significantly greater for fenestrated cemented screws (+622 N; p ⩽ 0.001) and solid cemented screws (+460 N; p ⩽ 0.001) than for uncemented screws. There was no significant difference between the solid and fenestrated cemented screws (p = 0.5). In the lower thoracic vertebrae, 1 mL cement was enough to significantly increase failure load, while 3 mL led to further significant improvement in the upper thoracic, lower thoracic and lumbar regions.ConclusionConventional, solid pedicle screws augmented with high-viscosity cement provided comparable screw stability in pull-out testing to that of sophisticated and more expensive fenestrated screws. In terms of cement volume, we recommend the use of at least 1 mL in the thoracic and 3 mL in the lumbar spine.Cite this article: C. I. Leichtle, A. Lorenz, S. Rothstock, J. Happel, F. Walter, T. Shiozawa, U. G. Leichtle. Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:419–426.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Ureterorenoscopy (URS) has revolutionized upper urinary tract stone therapy. However, the size of the working channel and the stone baskets limit irrigation flow as well as vision. This study determined further improvements of irrigation flow, deflection capacities and impairments of breaking resistance in a new 1.2 French (F) ultra-miniaturized basket. Irrigation measurements were performed in semirigid URS (semiURS, working channel 5F) and in flexible URS (flexURS, 3.6F) in 0°, 90° and 270° deflection with 1.2F, 1.8F, 1.9F and 2.2F baskets and compared with empty channel. Breaking strength of 1.2F, 1.8F and 1.9F baskets were evaluated using a material testing machine. Tested baskets affected irrigation in semiURS and flexURS (p < 0.05). Mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean) for semiURS flow rates counted 197.1 ± 2.0, 140.9 ± 1.6, 111.1 ± 1.5, 98.0 ± 1.3 and 77.1 ± 0.9 ml/min for empty channel, 1.2F, 1.8F, 1.9F and 2.2F baskets (p < 0.05). Using unbent flexURS flow rates of 44.2 ± 0.4, 20.4 ± 0.2, 5.9 ± 0.1, 5.4 ± 0.1 and 1.5 ± 0.1 ml/min for empty channel, 1.2F, 1.8F, 1.9F and 2.2F baskets, were observed (p < 0.05). The 1.2F versus 2.2F basket showed a 13.6-fold increase in flexURS irrigation (p < 0.05), while only the 2.2F basket reduced deflection by 20.3 %. The breaking strength decreased with a reduced basket size (1.2F: 6.4 ± 0.46 vs. 1.8F: 16.8 ± 2.79 vs. 1.9F: 32.2 ± 2.74 N, p < 0.05). Ultra-miniaturized baskets of 1.2F ensured a sufficient irrigation flow as needed for high quality vision in URS stone management. However, miniaturization of the 1.2F basket resulted in a reduced breaking strength compared with larger sized devices which in turn may hamper stone removal by an increased vulnerability.

Anatomic models are important in medical education and pre-operative planning as they help students or doctors prepare for real scenarios in a risk-free way. Several experimental anatomic models were made with additive manufacturing techniques to improve geometric, radiological, or mechanical realism. However, reproducing the mechanical behavior of soft tissues remains a challenge. To solve this problem, multi-material structuring of soft and hard materials was proposed in this study, and a three-dimensional (3D) printer was built to make such structuring possible. The printer relies on extrusion to deposit certain thermoplastic and silicone rubber materials. Various objects were successfully printed for testing the feasibility of geometric features such as thin walls, infill structuring, overhangs, and multi-material interfaces. Finally, a small medical image-based ribcage model was printed as a proof of concept for anatomic model printing. The features enabled by this printer offer a promising outlook on mimicking the mechanical properties of various soft tissues.

No abstract