Comparative morphometry of L4 vertebrae: comparison of large animal models for the human lumbar spine.

STUDY
DESIGN: Anatomic analysis of L4 vertebral morphometry comparing specimens harvested from humans and five common large animal species.
OBJECTIVE: To compare fundamental structural similarities and differences in the vertebral bodies of commonly used experimental animals relative to human vertebrae. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Animal models are commonly used for assessment of spine fusion, instrumentation techniques, and vertebral bone biology. Among the animals used, the lumbar vertebrae exhibit considerable anatomic variability. The goal of this study was to determine which of the animals commonly used for spine research is best suited as an anatomic model for the human lumbar spine.
METHODS: Morphometric features of the L4 vertebrae of five common research animals were compared with those of the human L4 vertebrae. Mature canines, immature pigs, mature micropigs, mature dairy goats, and mature sheep were analyzed. These species were chosen because they are commonly selected research animals, and most research facilities do not need to be modified to use them. The samples included ten L4 vertebrae of each animal species and seven human L4 vertebrae. Each specimen was meticulously cleaned of all soft tissue. The measurements were grouped into vertebral body parameters, neural canal dimensions, and pedicle and facet morphometery. The mean of each anatomic measurement was compared using a single factor analysis of variance and a Scheffe's post hoc test, with 0.05 denoting significance.
RESULTS: The human vertebral body was significantly wider and deeper in the anteroposterior plane than any of the animals studied. However, the mean vertebral body height of the sheep and goat significantly exceeded that of the human specimens. The mean pedicle angle of every animal species was significantly greater than that of the human. The mean pedicle width of the micropig and goat were significantly narrower than the human pedicles, and the dog specimens lacked a definable pedicle altogether. There was no significant difference in mean pedicle width between any of the remaining species and the human specimens. Facet tropism and radius of curvature of the sheep and goat specimens differed significantly from the remaining selections.
CONCLUSIONS: When posterior pedicle instrumentation is part of a testing protocol, the increased pedicle angle and lack of vertebral body depth found in all animals studied must be kept in mind. In addition, when testing interbody cages designed to stabilize the spine and promote fusion, one must be aware of the decreased vertebral body depth and width in these animals, as compared with humans. Physeal defects in the immature pig may alter specific biomechanical results during failure or fatigue testing, or in basic studies of vertebral bone material properties. In all cases, instrumentation and hardware must be sized appropriately to the selected model to provide meaningful results.