Ricardo Miguel Costa de Freitas1, Celi Santos Andrade2, José Guilherme Mendes Pereira Caldas2, Alexandre Fligelman Kanas2, Richard Halti Cabral3, Miriam Harumi Tsunemi4, Hernán Joel Cervantes Rodríguez5, Said Rahnamaye Rabbani5. 1. Radiology Department, Instituto de Radiologia-InRad, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, s/n(o) - Rua 1 - Cerqueira César, CEP: 05403-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil; Radiology Unit, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo-ICESP, Avenida Doutor Arnaldo, 251, Cerqueira César, 01246-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: ricardomcfreitas@gmail.com. 2. Radiology Department, Instituto de Radiologia-InRad, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, s/n(o) - Rua 1 - Cerqueira César, CEP: 05403-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 3. Anatomy Department, University of São Paulo Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2415 - Cidade Universitária, Butantã, 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. 4. Biostatistics Department, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho Biosciences Institute, Dist. Rubião Jr, 18618-970, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. 5. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Laboratory, Instituto de Física da Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão, Travessa R, 187, Cidade Universitária, 05508-090, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: New spinal interventions or implants have been tested on ex vivo or in vivo porcine spines, as they are readily available and have been accepted as a comparable model to human cadaver spines. Imaging-guided interventional procedures of the spine are mostly based on fluoroscopy or, still, on multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also available methods to guide interventional procedures. Although some MDCT data from porcine spines are available in the literature, validation of the measurements on CBCT and MRI is lacking. PURPOSE: To describe and compare the anatomical measurements accomplished with MDCT, CBCT, and MRI of lumbar porcine spines to determine if CBCT and MRI are also useful methods for experimental studies. STUDY DESIGN: An experimental descriptive-comparative study. METHODS: Sixteen anatomical measurements of an individual vertebra from six lumbar porcine spines (n=36 vertebrae) were compared with their MDCT, CBCT, and MRI equivalents. Comparisons were made for the absolute values of the parameters. RESULTS: Similarities were found in all imaging methods. Significant correlation (p<.05) was observed with all variables except those that included cartilaginous tissue from the end plates when the anatomical study was compared with the imaging methods. CONCLUSIONS: The CBCT and MRI provided imaging measurements of the lumbar porcine spines that were similar to the anatomical and MDCT data, and they can be useful for specific experimental research studies.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: New spinal interventions or implants have been tested on ex vivo or in vivo porcine spines, as they are readily available and have been accepted as a comparable model to human cadaver spines. Imaging-guided interventional procedures of the spine are mostly based on fluoroscopy or, still, on multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also available methods to guide interventional procedures. Although some MDCT data from porcine spines are available in the literature, validation of the measurements on CBCT and MRI is lacking. PURPOSE: To describe and compare the anatomical measurements accomplished with MDCT, CBCT, and MRI of lumbar porcine spines to determine if CBCT and MRI are also useful methods for experimental studies. STUDY DESIGN: An experimental descriptive-comparative study. METHODS: Sixteen anatomical measurements of an individual vertebra from six lumbar porcine spines (n=36 vertebrae) were compared with their MDCT, CBCT, and MRI equivalents. Comparisons were made for the absolute values of the parameters. RESULTS: Similarities were found in all imaging methods. Significant correlation (p<.05) was observed with all variables except those that included cartilaginous tissue from the end plates when the anatomical study was compared with the imaging methods. CONCLUSIONS: The CBCT and MRI provided imaging measurements of the lumbar porcine spines that were similar to the anatomical and MDCT data, and they can be useful for specific experimental research studies.
Authors: Lelia E B Barden; Lorrie Gaschen; Chiara De Caro Carella Hampton; Catherine Takawira; Chin-Chi Liu; Ali Nourbakhsh; Mandi J Lopez Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 3.752