Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morphological characteristics of the kangaroo lumbar intervertebral discs and comparison with other animal models used in spine research

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

Abstract

Purpose

Animal models are frequently used to elucidate pathomechanism and pathophysiology of various disorders of the human intervertebral disc (IVD) and also to develop therapeutic approaches. Here we report morphological characteristics of the kangaroo lumbar IVDs and compare them with other animal models used in spine research.

Methods

Twenty-five fresh-frozen cadaveric lumbar spines (T12–S1) derived from kangaroo carcases (Macropus giganteus) of undetermined age were first scanned in a C-Arm X-ray machine. A photograph of the axial section of the disc including a calibrated metric scale was also acquired. The digital radiographs and photographs were processed in ImageJ to determine the axial and sagittal plane dimensions for the whole disc (WD) and the nucleus pulposus (NP) and the mid-sagittal disc height for all the lumbar levels.

Results

Our results suggest that the L6–S1 IVD in kangaroos is distinctly large compared with the upper lumbar IVDs. Based on previously published data, human lumbar IVDs are the largest of all the animal IVDs used in spine research, with camelid cervical IVDs being the closest relative in absolute dimensions (llamas: 78% in disc height, 40% in WD volume, and 38% in NP volume). Kangaroo L6–S1 IVD was approximately 51% in height, 20% in WD volume, and 20% in NP volume of the human lumbar IVD.

Conclusions

We conclude that morphological similarities exist between a kangaroo and human lumbar IVD, especially with the lima bean shape in the axial plane, wedge shape in the sagittal plane, convexity at the cephalad endplates, and percentage volume occupied by the NP in the IVD.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The datasets reported in the present study are archived electronically in the UNSW Data Archives platform via a Research Data Management Plan and comply with the UNSW research code of conduct. The datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Alini M, Eisenstein SM, Ito K, Little C, Kettler AA, Masuda K, Melrose J, Ralphs J, Stokes I, Wilke HJ (2008) Are animal models useful for studying human disc disorders/degeneration? Eur Spine J 17:2–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0414-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Daly C, Ghosh P, Jenkin G, Oehme D, Goldschlager T (2016) A review of animal models of intervertebral disc degeneration: pathophysiology, regeneration, and translation to the clinic. Biomed Res Int 2016:14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5952165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connell GD, Vresilovic EJ, Elliott DM (2007) Comparison of animals used in disc research to human lumbar disc geometry. Spine 32:328–333. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000253961.40910.c1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. White AA, Panjabi MM (1990) Clinical biomechanics of the spine. Lippincott, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  5. Coric Domagoj, Mummaneni Praveen V (2008) Nucleus replacement technologies. J Neurosurg Spine 8:115–120. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi/2008/8/2/115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Zweig T, Ferguson S, Raimondi MT, Lamartina C, Brayda-Bruno M, Fornari M (2008) Design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 17:1635–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0811-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Cunningham BW, Lowery GL, Serhan HA, Dmitriev AE, Orbegoso CM, McAfee PC, Fraser RD, Ross RE, Kulkarni SS (2002) Total disc replacement arthroplasty using the AcroFlex lumbar disc: a non-human primate model. Eur Spine J 11:S115–S123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0481-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor BA, Okubadejo GO, Patel AA, Talcott MR, Imamura T, Hu N, Cunningham BW (2008) Evaluation of total disc arthroplasty: a canine model. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 37:E64–E70

    Google Scholar 

  9. Malhotra NR, Han WM, Beckstein J, Cloyd J, Chen W, Elliott DM (2012) An injectable nucleus pulposus implant restores compressive range of motion in the ovine disc. Spine 37:E1099–E1105. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31825cdfb7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kettler A, Kaps H-P, Haegele B, Wilke H-J (2007) Biomechanical behavior of a new nucleus prosthesis made of knitted titanium filaments. SAS J 1:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/SASJ-2007-0106-RR

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergknut N, Rutges JP, Kranenburg HJ, Smolders LA, Hagman R, Smidt HJ, Lagerstedt AS, Penning LC, Voorhout G, Hazewinkel HA, Grinwis GC, Creemers LB, Meij BP, Dhert WJ (2012) The dog as an animal model for intervertebral disc degeneration? Spine 37:351–358. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821e5665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Showalter BL, Beckstein JC, Martin JT, Beattie EE, Orías AAE, Schaer TP, Vresilovic EJ, Elliott DM (2012) Comparison of animal discs used in disc research to human lumbar disc: torsion mechanics and collagen content. Spine 37:E900–E907. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31824d911c

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Stolworthy DK, Fullwood RA, Merrell TM, Bridgewater LC, Bowden AE (2015) Biomechanical analysis of the camelid cervical intervertebral disc. J Orthop Transl 3:34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2014.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Townsend HG, Leach DH (1984) Relationship between intervertebral joint morphology and mobility in the equine thoracolumbar spine. Equine Vet J 16:461–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Beckstein JC, Sen S, Schaer TP, Vresilovic EJ, Elliott DM (2008) Comparison of animal discs used in disc research to human lumbar disc: axial compression mechanics and glycosaminoglycan content. Spine 33:E166–E173. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318166e001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Luk KDK, Ruan DK, Lu DS, Fei ZQ (2003) Fresh frozen intervertebral disc allografting in a bipedal animal model. Spine 28:864–869. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200305010-00005(discussion 870)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tominaga T, Dickman CA, Sonntag VK, Coons S (1995) Comparative anatomy of the baboon and the human cervical spine. Spine 20:131–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boden SD, Moskovitz PA, Morone MA, Toribitake Y (1996) Video-assisted lateral intertransverse process arthrodesis. Validation of a new minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion technique in the rabbit and nonhuman primate (rhesus) models. Spine 21:2689–2697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lankau EW, Turner PV, Mullan RJ, Galland GG (2014) Use of nonhuman primates in research in North America. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci JAALAS 53:278–282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boszczyk BM, Boszczyk AA, Putz R (2001) Comparative and functional anatomy of the mammalian lumbar spine. Anat Rec 264:157–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Balasubramanian S, Peters JR, Robinson LF, Singh A, Kent RW (2016) Thoracic spine morphology of a pseudo-biped animal model (kangaroo) and comparisons with human and quadruped animals. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4776-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chamoli U, Korkusuz MH, Sabnis AB, Manolescu AR, Tsafnat N, Diwan AD (2015) Global and segmental kinematic changes following sequential resection of posterior osteoligamentous structures in the lumbar spine: an in vitro biomechanical investigation using pure moment testing protocols. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 229:812–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411915612503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chamoli U, Chen AS, Diwan AD (2014) Interpedicular kinematics in an in vitro biomechanical assessment of a bilateral lumbar spondylolytic defect. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29:1108–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sabet T, Ho R, Choi J, Boughton P, Diwan A (2011) A kangaroo spine lumbar motion segment model: biomechanical analysis of a novel in situ curing nucleus replacement device. J Biomimetics Biomater Tissue Eng. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JBBTE.9.25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brown M, Ray CD, Frymoyer JD, Lee CK, Steffee AD, Kostuik JP, Nachemson AL (1992) Discussion of the artificial disc. In: Weinstein JN (ed) Clinical efficacy and outcome in the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Raven Press, New York, pp 279–280

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hopwood PR (1976) The quantitative anatomy of the kangaroo. University of Sydney, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  27. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stolworthy DK, Bowden AE, Roeder BL, Robinson TF, Holland JG, Christensen SL, Beatty AM, Bridgewater LC, Eggett DL, Wendel JD, Stieger-Vanegas SM, Taylor MD (2015) MRI evaluation of spontaneous intervertebral disc degeneration in the alpaca cervical spine. J Orthop Res 33:1776–1783. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Government A (2015) Kangaroo culling in four Australian states. Department of Environment and Energy, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  30. Government A (2018) Kangaroo meat. Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Cameron Crawley at Maverick Biosciences PTY Ltd (Dubbo, NSW) for providing kangaroo spine specimens for this study; Vivek Ramakrishna and Apoorv Parashar for help with preparing the specimens, C-Arm X-ray scanning, and digital photography; and Ben Tuckfield and Marcelle Dugo at the Biological Resource Centre (St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW) for help with C-Arm X-ray scanning.

Funding

Internal research funds from Spine Service were used to support this work. An unrestricted donation from NuVasive to the UNSW Foundation supported JU, and a research training scholarship from Anna Fonds supported MWAK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. George and Sutherland Clinical School, University of New South Wales Australia, Kogarah, Sydney, NSW, 2217, Australia

    Uphar Chamoli, Jose Umali, Daniel Chepurin & Ashish D. Diwan

  2. Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, School of Biomedical Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Uphar Chamoli

  3. Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, PO Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Meike W. A. Kleuskens

  4. Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC, 3168, Australia

    Daniel Chepurin

Authors
  1. Uphar Chamoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Umali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meike W. A. Kleuskens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Chepurin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ashish D. Diwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uphar Chamoli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests related to this study.

Ethics approval

All procedures on animal-derived materials performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of New South Wales (UNSW Australia)—Animal Care and Ethics Committee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 1627 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chamoli, U., Umali, J., Kleuskens, M.W.A. et al. Morphological characteristics of the kangaroo lumbar intervertebral discs and comparison with other animal models used in spine research. Eur Spine J 29, 652–662 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06044-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06044-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation