Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 12/2007

01-12-2007 | Original Article

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

Authors: A. Kettler, L. Liakos, B. Haegele, H.-J. Wilke

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 12/2007

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Abe E, Nickel T, Buttermann GR, Lewis JL, Transfeldt EE (1999) The effect of spinal instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure. Tohoku J Exp Med 187(3):237–247PubMedCrossRef Abe E, Nickel T, Buttermann GR, Lewis JL, Transfeldt EE (1999) The effect of spinal instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure. Tohoku J Exp Med 187(3):237–247PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Adams MA, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P (2002) The biomechanics of back pain. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh Adams MA, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P (2002) The biomechanics of back pain. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh
3.
go back to reference An HS, Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Wang G, Yoshida H, Eck J, McGrady L, Lim TH (2004) 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. Spine 29(3):257–262PubMedCrossRef An HS, Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Wang G, Yoshida H, Eck J, McGrady L, Lim TH (2004) 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. Spine 29(3):257–262PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Mohr RA, Nguyen BK (2001) Segmental pedicle screw fixation or cross-links in multilevel lumbar constructs. A biomechanical analysis. Spine J 1(5):373–379PubMedCrossRef Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Mohr RA, Nguyen BK (2001) Segmental pedicle screw fixation or cross-links in multilevel lumbar constructs. A biomechanical analysis. Spine J 1(5):373–379PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Cotterill PC, Kostuik JP, D’Angelo G, Fernie GR, Maki BE (1986) An anatomical comparison of the human and bovine thoracolumbar spine. J Orthop Res 4:298–303PubMedCrossRef Cotterill PC, Kostuik JP, D’Angelo G, Fernie GR, Maki BE (1986) An anatomical comparison of the human and bovine thoracolumbar spine. J Orthop Res 4:298–303PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dick JC, Jones MP, Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, Horton WC (1994) A biomechanical comparison evaluating the use of intermediate screws and cross-linkage in lumbar pedicle fixation. J Spinal Disord 7(5):402–407PubMedCrossRef Dick JC, Jones MP, Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, Horton WC (1994) A biomechanical comparison evaluating the use of intermediate screws and cross-linkage in lumbar pedicle fixation. J Spinal Disord 7(5):402–407PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Haid C, Claes L (2000) Effects of specimen length on the monosegmental motion behavior of the lumbar spine. Spine 25(5):543–550PubMedCrossRef Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Haid C, Claes L (2000) Effects of specimen length on the monosegmental motion behavior of the lumbar spine. Spine 25(5):543–550PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Lee SH, Derby R, Chen Y, Seo KS, Kim MJ (2004) In vitro measurement of pressure in intervertebral discs and annulus fibrosus with and without annular tears during discography. Spine J 4(6):614–618PubMedCrossRef Lee SH, Derby R, Chen Y, Seo KS, Kim MJ (2004) In vitro measurement of pressure in intervertebral discs and annulus fibrosus with and without annular tears during discography. Spine J 4(6):614–618PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lim TH, Kim JG, Fujiwara A, Yoon TT, Lee SC, Ha JW, An HS (2001) Biomechanical evaluation of diagonal fixation in pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine 26(22):2498–2503PubMedCrossRef Lim TH, Kim JG, Fujiwara A, Yoon TT, Lee SC, Ha JW, An HS (2001) Biomechanical evaluation of diagonal fixation in pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine 26(22):2498–2503PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference McNally DS, Adams MA (1992) Internal intervertebral disc mechanics as revealed by stress profilometry. Spine 17(1):66–73PubMedCrossRef McNally DS, Adams MA (1992) Internal intervertebral disc mechanics as revealed by stress profilometry. Spine 17(1):66–73PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Nohara H, Kanaya F (2004) Biomechanical study of adjacent intervertebral motion after lumbar spinal fusion and flexible stabilization using polyethylene-terephthalate bands. J Spinal Disord Tech 17(3):215–219PubMedCrossRef Nohara H, Kanaya F (2004) Biomechanical study of adjacent intervertebral motion after lumbar spinal fusion and flexible stabilization using polyethylene-terephthalate bands. J Spinal Disord Tech 17(3):215–219PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Park C, Kim YJ, Lee CS, An K, Shin HJ, Lee CH, Kim CH, Shin JW (2005) An in vitro animal study of the biomechanical responses of anulus fibrosus with aging. Spine 30(10):E259–E265PubMedCrossRef Park C, Kim YJ, Lee CS, An K, Shin HJ, Lee CH, Kim CH, Shin JW (2005) An in vitro animal study of the biomechanical responses of anulus fibrosus with aging. Spine 30(10):E259–E265PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Rao RD, David KS, Wang M (2005) Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine 30(24):2772–2776PubMedCrossRef Rao RD, David KS, Wang M (2005) Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine 30(24):2772–2776PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rao RD, Wang M, Singhal P, McGrady LM, Rao S (2002) Intradiscal pressure and kinematic behavior of lumbar spine after bilateral laminotomy and laminectomy. Spine J 2(5):320–326PubMedCrossRef Rao RD, Wang M, Singhal P, McGrady LM, Rao S (2002) Intradiscal pressure and kinematic behavior of lumbar spine after bilateral laminotomy and laminectomy. Spine J 2(5):320–326PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Riley LH 3rd, Eck JC, Yoshida H, Koh YD, You JW, Lim TH (2004) A biomechanical comparison of calf versus cadaver lumbar spine models. Spine 29(11):E217–E220PubMedCrossRef Riley LH 3rd, Eck JC, Yoshida H, Koh YD, You JW, Lim TH (2004) A biomechanical comparison of calf versus cadaver lumbar spine models. Spine 29(11):E217–E220PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Schmidt R, Richter M, Claes L, Puhl W, Wilke HJ (2005) Limitations of the cervical porcine spine in evaluating spinal implants in comparison with human cervical spinal segments: a biomechanical in vitro comparison of porcine and human cervical spine specimens with different instrumentation techniques. Spine 30(11):1275–1282PubMedCrossRef Schmidt R, Richter M, Claes L, Puhl W, Wilke HJ (2005) Limitations of the cervical porcine spine in evaluating spinal implants in comparison with human cervical spinal segments: a biomechanical in vitro comparison of porcine and human cervical spine specimens with different instrumentation techniques. Spine 30(11):1275–1282PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Scifert JL, Sairyo K, Goel VK, Grobler LJ, Grosland NM, Spratt KF, Chesmel KD (1999) Stability analysis of an enhanced load sharing posterior fixation device and its equivalent conventional device in a calf spine model. Spine 24(21):2206–2213PubMedCrossRef Scifert JL, Sairyo K, Goel VK, Grobler LJ, Grosland NM, Spratt KF, Chesmel KD (1999) Stability analysis of an enhanced load sharing posterior fixation device and its equivalent conventional device in a calf spine model. Spine 24(21):2206–2213PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Sudo H, Oda I, Abumi K, Ito M, Kotani Y, Hojo Y, Minami A (2003) In vitro biomechanical effects of reconstruction on adjacent motion segment: comparison of aligned/kyphotic posterolateral fusion with aligned posterior lumbar interbody fusion/posterolateral fusion. J Neurosurg 99(2 Suppl):221–228PubMed Sudo H, Oda I, Abumi K, Ito M, Kotani Y, Hojo Y, Minami A (2003) In vitro biomechanical effects of reconstruction on adjacent motion segment: comparison of aligned/kyphotic posterolateral fusion with aligned posterior lumbar interbody fusion/posterolateral fusion. J Neurosurg 99(2 Suppl):221–228PubMed
19.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Claes L, Schmitt H, Wolf S (1994) A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation. Eur Spine J 3(2):91–97PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Claes L, Schmitt H, Wolf S (1994) A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation. Eur Spine J 3(2):91–97PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 22(20):2365–2374PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 22(20):2365–2374PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Wenger KH, Claes LE (1997) Anatomy of the sheep spine and its comparison to the human spine. Anat Rec 247(4):542–555PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Wenger KH, Claes LE (1997) Anatomy of the sheep spine and its comparison to the human spine. Anat Rec 247(4):542–555PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Krischak ST, Wenger KH, Claes LE (1997) Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: experimental results and comparison to known human data. Eur Spine J 6(2):129–137PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Krischak ST, Wenger KH, Claes LE (1997) Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: experimental results and comparison to known human data. Eur Spine J 6(2):129–137PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7(2):148–154PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L (1998) Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 7(2):148–154PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Are the spines of calf, pig and sheep suitable models for pre-clinical implant tests?
Authors
A. Kettler
L. Liakos
B. Haegele
H.-J. Wilke
Publication date
01-12-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 12/2007
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0485-9

Other articles of this Issue 12/2007

European Spine Journal 12/2007 Go to the issue