article · Indian Journal of Neurosurgery
Transpedicular instrumentation provides spinal stability, yet implant failure occurs in up to seven percent of cases, with broken screws representing a quarter of these failures. Standard extraction approaches often require bone removal that weakens subsequent fixation and risks nerve or dural injuries. A clinical study of twenty revision surgery patients evaluated a novel extraction technique designed to remove broken lumbar pedicle screws while preserving pedicle integrity and the original trajectory. All broken fragments were successfully retrieved without intraoperative complications, allowing immediate reinstrumentation with larger screws. Patient pain scores improved substantially from a preoperative mean of 7.05 to 2.4 postoperatively. At six-month follow-up, every patient demonstrated clinical improvement and stable radiological fusion with no recurrent implant failures.
Broken screws in spinal implants cause severe pain and create technical difficulties during revision surgery, particularly when extracting fragments destroys supportive bone. Preserving the pedicle structure during hardware removal enables surgeons to place stronger replacement screws safely. This leads to effective spinal stabilisation, fewer surgical complications, and improved pain relief for patients undergoing revision procedures.
This technique represents an applied surgical method ready for use by spine surgeons and hospital operating departments managing hardware failures. Having been evaluated directly in twenty clinical cases with six-month follow-up, it is at a tested clinical stage. Real-world adoption relies on dissemination to surgical teams and the potential development or standardisation of dedicated retrieval toolsets to facilitate the procedure.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Abstract Transpedicular instrumentation is a cornerstone of spine surgery because of the vertebral pedicle's superior anatomical and biomechanical properties, which enable short-segment, three-dimensional stabilization. However, implant failure occurs in 3 to 7% of cases, with about 25% attributed to screw breakage. Removing broken fragments without compromising pedicle integrity remains technically challenging, and many existing techniques require bone removal that weakens subsequent fixation. Reported complications include fragment retrieval failure, nerve root injury, and dural tears. We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel technique for extracting broken lumbar pedicle screws while preserving pedicle integrity and enabling successful reinstrumentation, and to assess associated clinical and radiological outcomes. We conducted a retrospective series of 20 patients with radiologically confirmed broken lumbar pedicle screws at Menoufia University Hospitals after informed consent and Institutional Review Board approval. Patients were followed up after 6 months of the revision to assess clinical and radiological outcomes. Data were tabulated and analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2019 and SPSS, version 25. All patients underwent revision of previous lumbar fixation using the novel extraction technique. The mean age of the patients was 49.4 ± 8.7 years. Mean visual analog scale improved from 7.05 ± 1.36 preoperatively to 2.4 ± 0.68 postoperatively. Successful extraction of broken pedicle screws and reinstrumentation was achieved in all cases, with no intraoperative complications. At 6-month follow-up, all patients demonstrated clinical improvement and stable radiological fusion, without implant failure. Management of broken pedicle screws is challenging, especially when pedicle preservation is required. Our technique enables safe extraction of deeply seated fragments while preserving pedicle integrity and original trajectory, facilitating a larger screw reinsertion.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0046-1827240
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
