Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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):237–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams MA, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P (2002) The biomechanics of back pain. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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):257–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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):373–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 4:298–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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):402–407

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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):543–550

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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):614–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):2498–2503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McNally DS, Adams MA (1992) Internal intervertebral disc mechanics as revealed by stress profilometry. Spine 17(1):66–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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):215–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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–E265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rao RD, David KS, Wang M (2005) Biomechanical changes at adjacent segments following anterior lumbar interbody fusion using tapered cages. Spine 30(24):2772–2776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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):320–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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–E220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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):1275–1282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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):2206–2213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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):221–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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):91–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes LE (1997) Are sheep spines a valid biomechanical model for human spines? Spine 22(20):2365–2374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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):542–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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):129–137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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):148–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by AOSpine. The implants were provided by Ulrich medical (Ulm, Germany) and Paradigm Spine (Wurmlingen, Germany).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, University of Ulm, Helmholtzstrasse 14, 89081, Ulm, Germany

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

Authors
  1. A. Kettler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Liakos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Haegele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H.-J. Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Kettler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kettler, A., Liakos, L., Haegele, B. et al. Are the spines of calf, pig and sheep suitable models for pre-clinical implant tests?. Eur Spine J 16, 2186–2192 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0485-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0485-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation