Cargando…

Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine

New spinal implants and surgical procedures are often tested pre-clinically on human cadaver spines. However, the availability of fresh frozen human cadaver material is very limited and alternative animal spines are more easily available in all desired age groups, and have more uniform geometrical a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Busscher, Iris, Ploegmakers, Joris J. W., Verkerke, Gijsbertus J., Veldhuizen, Albert G.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900026/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20186441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1326-9
_version_ 1782183569379033088
author Busscher, Iris
Ploegmakers, Joris J. W.
Verkerke, Gijsbertus J.
Veldhuizen, Albert G.
author_facet Busscher, Iris
Ploegmakers, Joris J. W.
Verkerke, Gijsbertus J.
Veldhuizen, Albert G.
author_sort Busscher, Iris
collection PubMed
description New spinal implants and surgical procedures are often tested pre-clinically on human cadaver spines. However, the availability of fresh frozen human cadaver material is very limited and alternative animal spines are more easily available in all desired age groups, and have more uniform geometrical and biomechanical properties. The porcine spine is said to be the most representative model for the human spine but a complete anatomical comparison is lacking. The goal of this descriptive study was to compare the anatomical dimensions of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebrae of the human and porcine spine in order to determine whether the porcine spine can be a representative model for the human spine. CT scans were made of 6 human and 6 porcine spines, and 16 anatomical dimensions were measured per individual vertebrae. Comparisons were made for the absolute values of the dimensions, for the patterns of the dimensions within four spinal regions, and normalised values of the dimensions within each individual vertebra. Similarities were found in vertebral body height, shape of the end-plates, shape of the spinal canal, and pedicle size. Furthermore, regional trends were comparable for all dimensions, except for spinal canal depth and spinous processus angle. The size of the end-plates increased more caudally in the human spine. Relating the dimensions to the size of the vertebral body, similarities were found in the size of the spinal canal, the transverse processus length, and size of the pedicles. Taking scaling differences into account, it is believed that the porcine spine can be a representative anatomical model for the human spine in specific research questions.
format Text
id pubmed-2900026
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29000262010-10-07 Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine Busscher, Iris Ploegmakers, Joris J. W. Verkerke, Gijsbertus J. Veldhuizen, Albert G. Eur Spine J Original Article New spinal implants and surgical procedures are often tested pre-clinically on human cadaver spines. However, the availability of fresh frozen human cadaver material is very limited and alternative animal spines are more easily available in all desired age groups, and have more uniform geometrical and biomechanical properties. The porcine spine is said to be the most representative model for the human spine but a complete anatomical comparison is lacking. The goal of this descriptive study was to compare the anatomical dimensions of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar vertebrae of the human and porcine spine in order to determine whether the porcine spine can be a representative model for the human spine. CT scans were made of 6 human and 6 porcine spines, and 16 anatomical dimensions were measured per individual vertebrae. Comparisons were made for the absolute values of the dimensions, for the patterns of the dimensions within four spinal regions, and normalised values of the dimensions within each individual vertebra. Similarities were found in vertebral body height, shape of the end-plates, shape of the spinal canal, and pedicle size. Furthermore, regional trends were comparable for all dimensions, except for spinal canal depth and spinous processus angle. The size of the end-plates increased more caudally in the human spine. Relating the dimensions to the size of the vertebral body, similarities were found in the size of the spinal canal, the transverse processus length, and size of the pedicles. Taking scaling differences into account, it is believed that the porcine spine can be a representative anatomical model for the human spine in specific research questions. Springer-Verlag 2010-02-26 2010-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2900026/ /pubmed/20186441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1326-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Busscher, Iris
Ploegmakers, Joris J. W.
Verkerke, Gijsbertus J.
Veldhuizen, Albert G.
Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
title Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
title_full Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
title_fullStr Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
title_full_unstemmed Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
title_short Comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
title_sort comparative anatomical dimensions of the complete human and porcine spine
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900026/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20186441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1326-9
work_keys_str_mv AT busscheriris comparativeanatomicaldimensionsofthecompletehumanandporcinespine
AT ploegmakersjorisjw comparativeanatomicaldimensionsofthecompletehumanandporcinespine
AT verkerkegijsbertusj comparativeanatomicaldimensionsofthecompletehumanandporcinespine
AT veldhuizenalbertg comparativeanatomicaldimensionsofthecompletehumanandporcinespine