STUDY DESIGN: Basic science study measuring anatomical features of the cervical and lumbar spine in rat with normalized comparison with the human. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to comprehensively compare the rat and human cervical and lumbar spines to investigate whether the rat is an appropriate model for spine biomechanics investigations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Animal models have been used for a long time to investigate the effects of trauma, degenerative changes, and mechanical loading on the structure and function of the spine. Comparative studies have reported some mechanical properties and/or anatomical dimensions of the spine to be similar between various species. However, those studies are largely limited to the lumbar spine, and a comprehensive comparison of the rat and human spines is lacking. METHODS: Spines were harvested from male Holtzman rats (n = 5) and were scanned using micro- computed tomography and digitally rendered in 3 dimensions to quantify the spinal bony anatomy, including the lateral width and anteroposterior depth of the vertebra, vertebral body, and spinal canal, as well as the vertebral body and intervertebral disc heights. Normalized measurements of the vertebra, vertebral body, and spinal canal of the rat were computed and compared with corresponding measurements from the literature for the human in the cervical and lumbar spinal regions. RESULTS: The vertebral dimensions of the rat spine vary more between spinal levels than in humans. Rat vertebrae are more slender than human vertebrae, but the width-to-depth axial aspect ratios are very similar in both species in both the cervical and lumbar regions, especially for the spinal canal. CONCLUSION: The similar spinal morphology in the axial plane between rats and humans supports using the rat spine as an appropriate surrogate for modeling axial and shear loading of the human spine.
STUDY DESIGN: Basic science study measuring anatomical features of the cervical and lumbar spine in rat with normalized comparison with the human. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to comprehensively compare the rat and human cervical and lumbar spines to investigate whether the rat is an appropriate model for spine biomechanics investigations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Animal models have been used for a long time to investigate the effects of trauma, degenerative changes, and mechanical loading on the structure and function of the spine. Comparative studies have reported some mechanical properties and/or anatomical dimensions of the spine to be similar between various species. However, those studies are largely limited to the lumbar spine, and a comprehensive comparison of the rat and human spines is lacking. METHODS: Spines were harvested from male Holtzman rats (n = 5) and were scanned using micro- computed tomography and digitally rendered in 3 dimensions to quantify the spinal bony anatomy, including the lateral width and anteroposterior depth of the vertebra, vertebral body, and spinal canal, as well as the vertebral body and intervertebral disc heights. Normalized measurements of the vertebra, vertebral body, and spinal canal of the rat were computed and compared with corresponding measurements from the literature for the human in the cervical and lumbar spinal regions. RESULTS: The vertebral dimensions of the rat spine vary more between spinal levels than in humans. Rat vertebrae are more slender than human vertebrae, but the width-to-depth axial aspect ratios are very similar in both species in both the cervical and lumbar regions, especially for the spinal canal. CONCLUSION: The similar spinal morphology in the axial plane between rats and humans supports using the rat spine as an appropriate surrogate for modeling axial and shear loading of the human spine.
Authors: Dalin Wang; Alon Lai; Jennifer Gansau; Philip Nasser; Yunsoo Lee; Damien M Laudier; James C Iatridis Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2022-04-14
Authors: Alon Lai; Lap Ho; Thomas W Evashwick-Rogler; Hironobu Watanabe; Jonathan Salandra; Beth A Winkelstein; Damien Laudier; Andrew C Hecht; Giulio M Pasinetti; James C Iatridis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240