In Vitro biomechanical characteristics of the spine: A comparison between human and porcine spinal segments

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Busscher, Iris ^a   Van Der Veen, Albert J ^b   Van Dieen, Jaap H ^c   Kingma, Idsart ^c   Verkerke, Gijsbertus J ^a,d   Veldhuizen, Albert G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomechanical; Human; In vitro; Neutral zone; Porcine; Range of motion; Stiffness; Thoracolumbar spine

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; FUNCTION TEST; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMPLANT; IN VITRO STUDY; LIGAMENT; LIGAMENT SURGERY; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; RIGIDITY; SPINE MOBILITY; SWINE; THORACIC SPINE; THORACOLUMBAR SPINE;

ANIMALS; BIOMECHANICS; HUMANS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; ROTATION; SPINE; STRESS, MECHANICAL; SWINE; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 77749344427     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b21885     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. McLain RF, Yerby SA, Moseley TA. Comparative morphometry of L4 vertebrae: comparison of large animal models for the human lumbar spine. Spine 2002;27:E200-6.
2. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE. Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 1997;22:2365-74.
3. McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, et al. The effect of spinal implant rigidity on vertebral bone density. A canine model. Spine 1991;16:S190-7.
4. McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Farey ID, et al. The biomechanical and histomorpho-metric properties of anterior lumbar fusions: a canine model. J Spinal Disord 1988;1:101-10.
5. Gurr KR, McAfee PC, Warden KE, et al. Roentgenographic and biomechanical analysis of lumbar fusions: a canine model. J Orthop Res 1989;7:838-48.
6. Wilke HJ, Krischak S, Claes L. Biomechanical comparison of calf and human spines. J Orthop Res 1996;14:500-3.
7. 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.
8. Dath R, Ebinesan AD, Porter KM, et al. Anatomical measurements of porcine lumbar vertebrae. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon.) 2007;22:607-13.
9. Goertzen DJ, Lane C, Oxland TR. Neutral zone and range of motion in the spine are greater with stepwise loading than with a continuous loading protocol. An in vitro porcine investigation. J Biomech 2004;37:257-61.
10. Schmidt R, Richter M, Claes L, et al. 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 2005;30: 1275-82.
11. Yingling VR, Callaghan JP, McGill SM. The porcine cervical spine as a model of the human lumbar spine: an anatomical, geometric, and functional comparison. J Spinal Disord 1999;12:415-23.
12. Smit TH. The use of a quadruped as an in vivo model for the study of the spine - biomechanical considerations. Eur Spine J 2002;11:137-44.
13. Clarke EC, Appleyard RC, Bilston LE. Immature sheep spines are more flexible than mature spines: an in vitro biomechanical study. Spine 2007;32: 2970-9.
14. Bozkus H, Crawford NR, Chamberlain RH, et al. Comparative anatomy of the porcine and human thoracic spines with reference to thoracoscopic surgical techniques. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1652-65.
15. Masharawi Y, Rothschild B, Dar G, et al. Facet orientation in the thoraco - lumbar spine: three-dimensional anatomic and biomechanical analysis. Spine 2004;29:1755-63.
16. Panjabi MM, Oxland T, Takata K, et al. Articular facets of the human spine. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine 1993;18:1298-310.