Sohrab S Virk1, Alex Aurand2, Alicia L Bertone3, Hayam Hussein3, Mari Kaido3, William S Marras2, Safdar N Khan1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Biodynamics Laboratory, Spine Research Institute, Department of Integrated Systems Engineering, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 3. Comparative Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manual palpation of rabbit spine levels has been used to assess fusion status. This method of testing is subject to inter-observer differences in assessment. We attempted to quantify fusion based on the amount of movement between rabbit vertebrae at the level of fusion. METHODS: Rabbits were divided into three groups. The first underwent a sham surgery; the second underwent a unilateral spinal fusion; and the third underwent a bilateral spinal fusion. All groups were sacrificed at either 5- or 10-week post-procedure. Each spine was tested for fusion using standard manual palpation techniques. The spines were also placed on a specially designed apparatus and moved through 10°, 20°, and 30° of extension/flexion. RESULTS: Out of 10 rabbits, 2 underwent sham surgery, 2 underwent a fusion procedure at L4-L5 and 6 underwent a fusion at L5-L6. We only included rabbits that underwent a L5-L6 fusion surgery. Our apparatus did not always rotate the spine the intended amount with up to 30% error. When rabbits graded as fused were compared to sham rabbits, there was a trend towards reduction in percent of overall measured angle within the fused group as compared to the sham group (8.77% vs. 13.84%, P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Our model attempted to quantify the amount of displacement between vertebrae during the manual palpation exam. There is a trend towards reduced measured angle between vertebrae between fused and non-fused spines and no statistically significant difference in overall measured angle between unilaterally and bilaterally fused spines.
BACKGROUND: Manual palpation of rabbit spine levels has been used to assess fusion status. This method of testing is subject to inter-observer differences in assessment. We attempted to quantify fusion based on the amount of movement between rabbit vertebrae at the level of fusion. METHODS: Rabbits were divided into three groups. The first underwent a sham surgery; the second underwent a unilateral spinal fusion; and the third underwent a bilateral spinal fusion. All groups were sacrificed at either 5- or 10-week post-procedure. Each spine was tested for fusion using standard manual palpation techniques. The spines were also placed on a specially designed apparatus and moved through 10°, 20°, and 30° of extension/flexion. RESULTS: Out of 10 rabbits, 2 underwent sham surgery, 2 underwent a fusion procedure at L4-L5 and 6 underwent a fusion at L5-L6. We only included rabbits that underwent a L5-L6 fusion surgery. Our apparatus did not always rotate the spine the intended amount with up to 30% error. When rabbits graded as fused were compared to sham rabbits, there was a trend towards reduction in percent of overall measured angle within the fused group as compared to the sham group (8.77% vs. 13.84%, P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Our model attempted to quantify the amount of displacement between vertebrae during the manual palpation exam. There is a trend towards reduced measured angle between vertebrae between fused and non-fused spines and no statistically significant difference in overall measured angle between unilaterally and bilaterally fused spines.
Authors: J N Grauer; T C Patel; J S Erulkar; N W Troiano; M M Panjabi; G E Friedlaender Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alexander M Riordan; Rajesh Rangarajan; Joshua W Balts; Wellington K Hsu; Paul A Anderson Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Matthew E Cunningham; Jocelyn M Beach; Serkan Bilgic; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Marjolein C H van der Meulen; Chisa Hidaka Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Albert Juang Ming Yee; Hyun W Bae; Darin Friess; Mark Robbin; Brian Johnstone; Jung U Yoo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468