Literature DB >> 17721711

Are the spines of calf, pig and sheep suitable models for pre-clinical implant tests?

A Kettler1, L Liakos, B Haegele, H-J Wilke.   

Abstract

Pre-clinical in vitro tests are needed to evaluate the biomechanical performance of new spinal implants. For such experiments large animal models are frequently used. Whether these models allow any conclusions concerning the implant's performance in humans is difficult to answer. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether calf, pig or sheep spine specimens may be used to replace human specimens in in vitro flexibility and cyclic loading tests with two different implant types. First, a dynamic and a rigid fixator were tested using six human, six calf, six pig and six sheep thoracolumbar spine specimens. Standard flexibility tests were carried out in a spine tester in flexion/extension, lateral bending and axial rotation in the intact state, after nucleotomy and after implantation. Then, the Coflex interspinous implant was tested for flexibility and intradiscal pressure using another six human and six calf lumbar spine segments. Loading was carried out as described above in the intact condition, after creation of a defect and after implantation. The fixators were most easily implantable into the calf. Qualitatively, they had similar effects on ROM in all species, however, the degree of stability achieved differed. Especially in axial rotation, the ROM of sheep, pig and calf was partially less than half the human ROM. Similarly, implantation of the Coflex interspinous implant caused the ROM to either increase in both species or to decrease in both of them, however, quantitatively, differences were observed. This was also the case for the intradiscal pressure. In conclusion, animal species, especially the calf, may be used to get a first idea of how a new pedicle screw system or an interspinous implant behaves in in vitro flexibility tests. However, the effects on ROM and intradiscal pressure have to be expected to differ in magnitude between animal and human. Therefore, the last step in pre-clinical implant testing should always be an experiment with human specimens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17721711      PMCID: PMC2140126          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0485-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  22 in total

1.  Stability analysis of an enhanced load sharing posterior fixation device and its equivalent conventional device in a calf spine model.

Authors:  J L Scifert; K Sairyo; V K Goel; L J Grobler; N M Grosland; K F Spratt; K D Chesmel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Biomechanical evaluation of diagonal fixation in pedicle screw instrumentation.

Authors:  T H Lim; J G Kim; A Fujiwara; T T Yoon; S C Lee; J W Ha; H S An
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  In vitro biomechanical effects of reconstruction on adjacent motion segment: comparison of aligned/kyphotic posterolateral fusion with aligned posterior lumbar interbody fusion/posterolateral fusion.

Authors:  Hideki Sudo; Itaru Oda; Kuniyoshi Abumi; Manabu Ito; Yoshihisa Kotani; Yoshihiro Hojo; Akio Minami
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Segmental pedicle screw fixation or cross-links in multilevel lumbar constructs. a biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  D S Brodke; K N Bachus; R A Mohr; B K Nguyen
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  Biomechanical study of adjacent intervertebral motion after lumbar spinal fusion and flexible stabilization using polyethylene-terephthalate bands.

Authors:  Hirokazu Nohara; Fuminori Kanaya
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2004-06

6.  Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages.

Authors:  Raj D Rao; Kenny S David; Mei Wang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  An anatomical comparison of the human and bovine thoracolumbar spine.

Authors:  P C Cotterill; J P Kostuik; G D'Angelo; G R Fernie; B E Maki
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Biomechanical evaluation of contemporary posterior spinal internal fixation configurations in an unstable burst-fracture calf spine model: special references of hook configurations and pedicle screws.

Authors:  Howard S An; Kern Singh; Alexander R Vaccaro; G Wang; H Yoshida; Jason Eck; L McGrady; Tae-Hong Lim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Intradiscal pressure and kinematic behavior of lumbar spine after bilateral laminotomy and laminectomy.

Authors:  Raj D Rao; Mei Wang; Peeush Singhal; Linda M McGrady; Santi Rao
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  A biomechanical comparison of calf versus cadaver lumbar spine models.

Authors:  Lee H Riley; Jason C Eck; Hiroyuki Yoshida; Young Do Koh; Jae Won You; Tae-Hong Lim
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  32 in total

1.  [Biomechanics of interspinous spacers].

Authors:  H-J Wilke; J Drumm; K Häussler; C Mack; A Kettler
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Evaluation of unilateral cage-instrumented fixation for lumbar spine.

Authors:  Ti-Sheng Chang; Jia-Hao Chang; Chien-Shiung Wang; Hung-Yi Chen; Ching-Wei Cheng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  Comparison of Intervertebral ROM in Multi-Level Cadaveric Lumbar Spines Using Distinct Pure Moment Loading Approaches.

Authors:  Brandon Santoni; Andres F Cabezas; Daniel J Cook; Matthew S Yeager; James B Billys; Benjamin Whiting; Boyle C Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

4.  Effect of a novel interspinous implant on lumbar spinal range of motion.

Authors:  Robert Gunzburg; Marek Szpalski; Stuart A Callary; Christopher J Colloca; Victor Kosmopoulos; Deed Harrison; Robert J Moore
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-02-07       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Applications of finite element simulation in orthopedic and trauma surgery.

Authors:  Antonio Herrera; Elena Ibarz; José Cegoñino; Antonio Lobo-Escolar; Sergio Puértolas; Enrique López; Jesús Mateo; Luis Gracia
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2012-04-18

6.  Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; J Drumm; K Häussler; C Mack; W-I Steudel; A Kettler
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the complete porcine spine in comparison with data of the human spine.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; Jürgen Geppert; Annette Kienle
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Thoracic spine morphology of a pseudo-biped animal model (kangaroo) and comparisons with human and quadruped animals.

Authors:  Sriram Balasubramanian; James R Peters; Lucy F Robinson; Anita Singh; Richard W Kent
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Morphometric comparison of the lumbar cancellous bone of sheep, deer, and humans.

Authors:  Yang Wang; Guomin Liu; Ting Li; Yanlong Xiao; Qing Han; Randong Xu; Youqiong Li
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 0.982

10.  Biomechanical testing of a polymer-based biomaterial for the restoration of spinal stability after nucleotomy.

Authors:  Aldemar A Hegewald; Sven Knecht; Daniel Baumgartner; Hans Gerber; Michaela Endres; Christian Kaps; Edgar Stüssi; Claudius Thomé
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.