96 (11)degrees and C-O-C-C = -177.96 (12)degrees]. An intramolecular O-H center dot center dot center dot N interaction generates an S(6) ring motif. In the crystal, molecules are linked by pairs of C-H center dot center dot center dot O interactions into dimers, which generate S(16) ring motifs. These dimers are arranged into sheets parallel to

the ac plane and further stacked down the b axis by pi-pi interactions, with centroid-centroid distances in the range 3.5066 (8)-3.7241 (7) angstrom.”
“Study Design. An in vitro laboratory find more study.\n\nObjective. (i) To evaluate the effect of osteoporotic degree in determining the strength of sacral screw fixation and (ii) to compare the strength of unaugmented bicortical pedicle screw and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) augmented unicortical pedicle screw in sacral fixation.\n\nSummary of Background Data. Screw loosening is a clinical problem in lumbosacral fusions, especially in osteoporotic patients. To improve the screw anchoring strength of sacrum, bicortical

and PMMA augmented sacral Selleck SN-38 pedicle screw fixation techniques are widely used in clinical practice. However, the biomechanical strength of the bicortical and PMMA augmented sacral screw fixations remains undetermined in different degrees of osteoporosis.\n\nMethods. Twenty-five fresh osteoporotic cadavers were used in this study. According to the value of lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) assessed by DEXA, specimens were divided into 3 groups: group A (N = 9): BMD – 0.7 to 0.8 g/ cm2, group B (N = 8): BMD = 0.6 to 0.7 g/cm2, and group C (N = 8): BMD = 0.6 g/cm(2). In each specimen, S1 pedicle screw was inserted bicortically on the left side, and S1 pedicle screw with PMMA augmentation was inserted unicortically on the right side of the sacrum.

Following a dynamic cyclic loading from 30 to 250 N on BLZ945 the screw head for 2000 cycles, the subsidence displacement and axial pull-out strength of each screw were measured.\n\nResults. No anchoring failure (defined as the subsidence displacement exceeding 2 mm within 2000 loading cycles) occurred in group A and B. However, in group C, 6 cases (75%) in bicortical fixation and 5 cases (63%) in PMMA augmented fixation failed during cyclic loading. In group A, no significant difference between the bicortical and PMMA augmented fixations was detected in terms of the subsidence and maximal pull-out strength. In group B, significantly less subsidence and higher maximal pullout strength were demonstrated in the PMMA augmented technique than that in the bicortical fixation. Both techniques exhibited lower subsidence of the screw in group A than in group B. The bicortical technique exhibited higher maximum pull-out strength in group A than that in group B. However, statistical difference in terms of PMMA augmentation was not detected between group A and B.\n\nConclusion. For BMD value more than 0.