Sriram Balasubramanian1, James R Peters2, Lucy F Robinson3, Anita Singh4, Richard W Kent5. 1. School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Bossone 718, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. sri.bala@drexel.edu. 2. School of Biomedical Engineering, Science and Health Systems, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Bossone 718, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Drexel University, Nesbitt Hall, 3215 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Widener University, One University Place, Chester, PA, 19013, USA. 5. Mechanical and Aerospace Department, University of Virginia, 122 Engineer's Way, P.O. Box 400746, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4746, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Based on the structural anatomy, loading condition and range of motion (ROM), no quadruped animal has been shown to accurately mimic the structure and biomechanical function of the human spine. The objective of this study is to quantify the thoracic vertebrae geometry of the kangaroo, and compare with adult human, pig, sheep, and deer. METHODS: The thoracic vertebrae (T1-T12) from whole body CT scans of ten juvenile kangaroos (ages 11-14 months) were digitally reconstructed and geometric dimensions of the vertebral bodies, endplates, pedicles, spinal canal, processes, facets and intervertebral discs were recorded. Similar data available in the literature on the adult human, pig, sheep, and deer were compared to the kangaroo. A non-parametric trend analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thoracic vertebral dimensions of the juvenile kangaroo were found to be generally smaller than those of the adult human and quadruped animals. The most significant (p < 0.001) correlations (Rho) found between the human and kangaroo were in vertebrae and endplate dimensions (0.951 ≤ Rho ≤ 0.963), pedicles (0.851 ≤ Rho ≤ 0.951), and inter-facet heights (0.891 ≤ Rho ≤ 0.967). The deer displayed the least similar trends across vertebral levels. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in thoracic spine vertebral geometry, particularly of the vertebrae, pedicles and facets may render the kangaroo a more clinically relevant human surrogate for testing spinal implants. The pseudo-biped kangaroo may also be a more suitable model for the human thoracic spine for simulating spine deformities, based on previously published similarities in biomechanical loading, posture and ROM.
PURPOSE: Based on the structural anatomy, loading condition and range of motion (ROM), no quadruped animal has been shown to accurately mimic the structure and biomechanical function of the human spine. The objective of this study is to quantify the thoracic vertebrae geometry of the kangaroo, and compare with adult human, pig, sheep, and deer. METHODS: The thoracic vertebrae (T1-T12) from whole body CT scans of ten juvenile kangaroos (ages 11-14 months) were digitally reconstructed and geometric dimensions of the vertebral bodies, endplates, pedicles, spinal canal, processes, facets and intervertebral discs were recorded. Similar data available in the literature on the adult human, pig, sheep, and deer were compared to the kangaroo. A non-parametric trend analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thoracic vertebral dimensions of the juvenile kangaroo were found to be generally smaller than those of the adult human and quadruped animals. The most significant (p < 0.001) correlations (Rho) found between the human and kangaroo were in vertebrae and endplate dimensions (0.951 ≤ Rho ≤ 0.963), pedicles (0.851 ≤ Rho ≤ 0.951), and inter-facet heights (0.891 ≤ Rho ≤ 0.967). The deer displayed the least similar trends across vertebral levels. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in thoracic spine vertebral geometry, particularly of the vertebrae, pedicles and facets may render the kangaroo a more clinically relevant human surrogate for testing spinal implants. The pseudo-biped kangaroo may also be a more suitable model for the human thoracic spine for simulating spine deformities, based on previously published similarities in biomechanical loading, posture and ROM.
Authors: M R Zindrick; G W Knight; M J Sartori; T J Carnevale; A G Patwardhan; M A Lorenz Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Vedat Deviren; Emre Acaroglu; Joe Lee; Masaru Fujita; Serena Hu; Lawrence G Lenke; David Polly; Timothy R Kuklo; Michael O'Brien; David Brumfield; Christian M Puttlitz Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Iris Busscher; Albert J van der Veen; Jaap H van Dieën; Idsart Kingma; Gijsbertus J Verkerke; Albert G Veldhuizen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James R Peters; Charanya Chandrasekaran; Lucy F Robinson; Sabah E Servaes; Robert M Campbell; Sriram Balasubramanian Journal: Spine J Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Peter O Newton; Christine L Farnsworth; Vidyadhar V Upasani; Reid C Chambers; Eric Varley; Shunji Tsutsui Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Peter O Newton; Kevin B Fricka; Steven S Lee; Christine L Farnsworth; Tyler G Cox; Andrew T Mahar Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mauro Alini; Stephen M Eisenstein; Keita Ito; Christopher Little; A Annette Kettler; Koichi Masuda; James Melrose; Jim Ralphs; Ian Stokes; Hans Joachim Wilke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2007-07-14 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Enrice I Huenerfauth; Viktor Molnár; Marco Rosati; Malgorzata Ciurkiewicz; Franz J Söbbeler; Oliver Harms; Robert Hildebrandt; Wolfgang Baumgärtner; Andrea Tipold; Holger A Volk; Jasmin Nessler Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2022-07-04