Raj D Rao1, Vaibhav B Bagaria, Brian C Cooley. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53226-3522, USA. rrao@mcw.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Animal models are frequently used for studying the effect of bone graft substitutes or allogeneic materials on osterolateral lumbar fusion. Transgenic technology in the mouse provides a unique opportunity to further understand the biology of spine fusion. PURPOSE: To describe pertinent lumbar spine anatomy and formulate a surgical protocol for posterolateral fusion in the mouse model. STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic model: development of an animal model for biologic evaluation of posterolateral spine fusion. METHOD: Ten mice were killed to study relevant lumbar spine anatomy and develop a protocol for lumbar spine fusion. The L4-L6 fusion protocol was validated in 46 mice for ease of exposure, preparation of the posterolateral fusion bed, introduction of bone inductive agents, and perioperative care. RESULTS: Anatomy and surgical technique for posterolateral intertransverse lumbar fusion in the mouse model are described. A paraspinal approach allows exposure of the transverse processes, decortication, and graft placement at the L4-L6 intertransverse fusion site. Decortication alone did not result in fusion, whereas the use of bone graft resulted in satisfactory fusion rates. Perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were low. CONCLUSION: The mouse posterolateral lumbar spine fusion model is reproducible, inexpensive, and has low complication rates. Knowledge of the relevant anatomy and adherence to a well-defined surgical protocol provides a reliable and reproducible experimental spine fusion model.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Animal models are frequently used for studying the effect of bone graft substitutes or allogeneic materials on osterolateral lumbar fusion. Transgenic technology in the mouse provides a unique opportunity to further understand the biology of spine fusion. PURPOSE: To describe pertinent lumbar spine anatomy and formulate a surgical protocol for posterolateral fusion in the mouse model. STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic model: development of an animal model for biologic evaluation of posterolateral spine fusion. METHOD: Ten mice were killed to study relevant lumbar spine anatomy and develop a protocol for lumbar spine fusion. The L4-L6 fusion protocol was validated in 46 mice for ease of exposure, preparation of the posterolateral fusion bed, introduction of bone inductive agents, and perioperative care. RESULTS: Anatomy and surgical technique for posterolateral intertransverse lumbar fusion in the mouse model are described. A paraspinal approach allows exposure of the transverse processes, decortication, and graft placement at the L4-L6 intertransverse fusion site. Decortication alone did not result in fusion, whereas the use of bone graft resulted in satisfactory fusion rates. Perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were low. CONCLUSION: The mouse posterolateral lumbar spine fusion model is reproducible, inexpensive, and has low complication rates. Knowledge of the relevant anatomy and adherence to a well-defined surgical protocol provides a reliable and reproducible experimental spine fusion model.
Authors: Ioan A Lina; Wataru Ishida; Jason A Liauw; Sheng-Fu L Lo; Benjamin D Elder; Alexander Perdomo-Pantoja; Debebe Theodros; Timothy F Witham; Christina Holmes Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Jiayu Shi; Soonchul Lee; Michael Uyeda; Justine Tanjaya; Jong Kil Kim; Hsin Chuan Pan; Patricia Reese; Louis Stodieck; Andy Lin; Kang Ting; Jin Hee Kwak; Chia Soo Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Vashe Chandrakanthan; Avani Yeola; Jair C Kwan; Rema A Oliver; Qiao Qiao; Young Chan Kang; Peter Zarzour; Dominik Beck; Lies Boelen; Ashwin Unnikrishnan; Jeanette E Villanueva; Andrea C Nunez; Kathy Knezevic; Cintia Palu; Rabab Nasrallah; Michael Carnell; Alex Macmillan; Renee Whan; Yan Yu; Philip Hardy; Shane T Grey; Amadeus Gladbach; Fabien Delerue; Lars Ittner; Ralph Mobbs; Carl R Walkley; Louise E Purton; Robyn L Ward; Jason W H Wong; Luke B Hesson; William Walsh; John E Pimanda Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Laura C Shum; Alex M Hollenberg; Avionna L Baldwin; Brianna H Kalicharan; Noorullah Maqsoodi; Paul T Rubery; Addisu Mesfin; Roman A Eliseev Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240