The effect of cerebrospinal fluid on the biomechanics of spinal cord: An ex vivo bovine model using bovine and physical surrogate spinal cord

Spine

Volumn 33, Issue 17, 2008, Pages

  Jones, Claire F ^a,b   Kroeker, Shannon G ^b   Cripton, Peter A ^b   Hall, Richard M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomechanics; Cerebrospinal fluid; Deformation; Dura; Neuroprotection; Spinal cord injury; Subarachnoid space; Surrogate spinal cord

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID; CONTROLLED STUDY; DURA MATER; ENERGY; EVALUATION; EX VIVO STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPINAL CORD; SPINE FRACTURE; SPINE MALFORMATION; ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CATTLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICS; CATTLE; CEREBROSPINAL FLUID; HUMANS; MODELS, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SPINAL CORD; SPINAL FRACTURES;

EID: 58949087477     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817ecc57     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Sekhon LH, Fehlings MG. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury. Spine 2001;26:S2-S12.
2. Burt AA. The epidemiology, natural history and prognosis of spinal cord injury. Curr Orthop 2004;18:26-32.
3. Burke DA, Linden RD, Zhang YP, et al. Incidence rates and populations at risk of spinal cord injury: a regional study. Spinal Cord 2001;39:274-8.
4. Go BK, De Vivo MJ, Richards JS. The epidemiology of spinal cord injury. In: Stover SL, DeLisa JA, Whiteneck GG, eds. Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Outcomes from the Model Systems. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; 1995: 21-55.
5. Hung TK, Albin MS, Brown TD, et al. Biomechanical responses to open experimental spinal cord injury. Surg Neurol 1975;4:271-6.
6. Chang DG, Tencer AF, Ching RP, et al. Geometric changes in the cervical spinal canal during impact. Spine 1994;19:973-80.
7. Tran NT, Watson NA, Tencer AF, et al. Mechanism of the burst fracture in the thoracolumbar spine. The effect of loading rate. Spine 1985;20:1984-8.
8. Raynak GC, Nuckley DJ, Tencer AF, et al. Transducers for dynamics measurement of spine neural-space occlusions. J Biomech Eng 1998;120: 787-91.
9. Wilcox RK, Boerger TO, Allen DJ, et al. A dynamic study of thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:2184-9.
10. Saari A, Itshayek E, Nelson TS, et al. Spinal Cord Deformation During Injury of the Cervical Spine in Head-First Impact. International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impacts - Annual Meeting. Madrid, Spain; 2006:20-22.
11. Bilston LE, Thibault LE. Biomechanics of cervical spinal cord injury in flexion and extension: a physical model to estimate spinal cord deformations. Int J Crashworthines 1997;2:207-18.
12. Bilston LE, Meaney DF, Thibault L. The Development of a Physical Model to Measure Strain in a Surrogate Spinal Cord During Hyperflexion and Hyper-extension. International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impacts -Annual Meeting. Eindhoven, The Netherlands; 1993:8-10.
13. Hall RM, Oakland RJ, Wilcox RK, et al. Spinal cord-fragment interactions following burst fracture: an in vitro model. J Neurosurg Spine 2006;5:243-50.
14. Cotterill PC, Kostuik JP, D'Angelo G, et al. An anatomical comparison of the human and bovine thoracolumbar spine. J Orthop Res 1986;4:298-303.
15. Wilke HJ, Krischak S, Claes L. Biomechanical comparison of calf and human spines. J Orthop Res 1996;14:500-3.
16. Wilke HJ, Krischak ST, Wenger KH, et al. Load-displacement properties of the thoracolumbar calf spine: experimental results and. comparison to known human data. Eur Spine J 1997;6:129-37.
17. Riley LH III, Eck JC, Yoshida H, et al. A biomechanical comparison of calf versus cadaver lumbar spine models. Spine 2004;29:E217 - E2120.
18. Oakland RJ, Hall RM, Wilcox RK, et al. The biomechanical response of spinal cord tissue to uniaxial loading. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 2006;220:489-92.
19. Ichihara K, Taguchi T, Shimada Y, et al. Gray matter of the bovine cervical spinal cord is mechanically more rigid and fragile than the white matter. J Neurotrauma 2001;1 8:361-7.
20. Bilston LE, Thibault LE. The mechanical properties of the human cervical spinal cord in vitro. Ann Biomed Eng 1996;24:67-74.
21. Chang GL, Hung TK, Bleyaert A, et al. Stress-strain measurement of the spinal cord of puppies and their neurological evaluation. J Trauma 1981;21: 807-10.
22. Chang GL, Hung TK, Feng WW, An in vivo measurement and analysis of viscoelastic properties of the spinal cord of cats. J Biomecb Eng 1988;110: 115-22.
23. Hung TK, Chang GL. Biomechanical and neurological response of the spinal cord of a puppy to uniaxial tension. J Biomecb Eng 1981;103:43-7.
24. Hung TK, Chang GL, Chang JL, et al. Stress-strain relationship and neurological sequelae of uniaxial elongation of the spinal cord of cats. Surg Neurol 1981;15:471-6.
25. Reed SG. The human spinal cord: an improved physical surrogate model. MASc, Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering. University of British Columbia: BC; 2005.
26. Bloomfield IG, Johnston IH, Bilston LE. Effects of proteins, blood cells and glucose on the viscosity of cerebrospinal fluid. Pediatr Neurosurg 1998;28: 246-51.
27. Tunturi AR. Elasticity of the spinal cord dura in the dog. J Neurosurg 1977; 47:391-6.
28. Stevens JM, O'Driscoll DM, Yu YL, et al. Some dynamic factors in compres-sive deformity of the cervical spinal cord. Neuroradiology 1987;29:136-42.
29. Wilcox RK, Boerger TO, Hall RM, et al. Measurement of canal occlusion during the thoracolumbar burst fracture process. J Biomech 2002;35:3 81-4.
30. Glantz SA. Primer of Biostatistics. London: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
31. Penning L. Functional Pathology of the Cervical Spine. Amsterdam: Ex-cerpta Medica Foundation; 1968.
32. Gellad F, Rao KC, Joseph PM, et al. Morphology and dimensions of the thoracic cord by computer-assisted metrizamide myelography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1983;4:614-7.
33. Zaaroor M, Kosa G, Peri-Eran A, et al. Morphological study of the spinal canal content for subarachnoid endoscopy. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2006;49:220-6.
34. Oakland RJ. A biomechanical study of the spinal cord in the burst fracture process. PhD. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds: United Kingdom; 2003.
35. Anderson TE. Spinal cord contusion injury: experimental dissociation of hemorrhagic necrosis and subacute loss of axonal conduction. J Neurosurg 1985;62:115-9.
36. Kearney PA, Ridella SA, Viano DC, et al. Interaction of contact velocity and cord compression in determining the severity of spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 1988;5:187-208.
37. Dohrmann GJ, Panjabi MM. Spinal cord deformation velocity, impulse, and energy related to lesion volume in "standardised" trauma. Surg Forum 1976; 27:466-8.
38. Fiford RJ, Bilston LE. The mechanical properties of rat spinal cord in vitro. J Biomech 2005;38:1509-15.
39. Hung TK, Chang GL, Lin HS, et al. Stress-strain relationship of the spinal cord of anesthetized cats. J Biomech 1981;14:269-76.
40. Bilston LE. The effect of perfusion on soft tissue mechanical properties: a computational model. Comput Methods Biomecb Biomed Engin 2002;5: 283-90.
41. Gefen A, Margulies SS. Are in vivo and in situ brain tissues mechanically similar. J Biomech 2004;37:1339-52.
42. Wada T, Yao H, Miyamoto T, et al. Prevention and detection of spinal cord injury during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repairs. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:80-4.
43. Drenger B, Parker SD, Frank SM, et al. Changes in cerebrospinal fluid pressure and lactate concentrations during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Anesthesiology 1997;86:41-7.