Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17(01): 17-24
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632796
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

An in vitro biomechanical study of the effects of surgical modification upon the canine lumbosacral spine

M. E. H. Smith
1   Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
T. N. Bebchuk
1   Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
C. L. Shmon
1   Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
L. G. Watson
2   Dept. of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
H. Steinmetz
2   Dept. of Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
› Author AffiliationsWe would like to thank Vicki Adams DVM, Dept. Herd Health, Western College of Veterinary Medicine for assistance with statistical analysis; Juliane Duebner DVM, Western College of Veterinary Medicine for creating medical illustrations and the Western College of Veterinary Medicine Companion Animal Health Fund for entire funding of this project.
Further Information

Publication History

Received 15 April 2003

Accepted 19 June 2003

Publication Date:
22 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of surgical decompressive procedures upon stiffness of cadaveric canine lumbosacral motion units in the dorsoventral plane. Thirty-four grossly normal lumbosacral specimens were potted, in aluminum channeling with polymethylmethacrylate, and subjected to four-point bending in dorsiflexion and ventroflexion, using a universal testing machine (Instron MA). In order to determine its yield point, each specimen was non-destructively tested before and after surgical modification and then tested to failure in ventroflexion. Dorsal laminectomy (L) did not have a significant effect upon stiffness of the lumbosacral motion unit in dorsiflexion or ventroflexion, when compared with the control group. Since this also involved excision of the interspinous and supraspinous ligaments, removal of these structures alone also did not have any significant effect upon dorsoventral stiffness in vitro. Compared with the control group, the stiffness in the other groups changed as follows: addition of discectomy (LD) did not have a statistically significant effect in dorsiflexion, but decreased mean stiffness 33.1% (95% CI 29.0 to 37.2) in ventroflexion. Dorsal laminectomy combined with bilateral facetectomy (LF) decreased stiffness 43.5% (95% CI 39.4 to 47.6) in dorsiflexion, and 30.9% (95% CI 26.8 to 35.0) in ventroflexion. The combination of dorsal laminectomy, facetectomy and discectomy (LFD) decreased the stiffness 47.9% (95% CI 43.8 to 52.0) in dorsiflexion and 56.4% (95% CI 52.3 to 60.5) in ventroflexion. This decrease in stiffness in ventroflexion was significantly greater than with laminectomy and facetectomy alone (25% less stiff; 95% CI 20.9 to 29.1).

Keywords

Canine - lumbosacral - biomechanical - vertebra
 

  • References

  • 1 Boutros CP, Trout DR, Kasra M. the effect of repeated freeze-thaw cycles on the biomechanical properties of canine cortical bone. VCOT 2000; 13: 59-64.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bray JP, Burbidge HM. The canine intervertebral disc. Part I: Structure and function. J Amer An Hosp Assoc 1998; 34: 55-63.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bray JP, Burbidge HM. The canine intervertebral disc. Part II: Degenerative changes - nonchondrodystrophoid versus chondrodystrophoid disks. J Amer An Hosp Assoc 1998; 34: 135-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Burger R, Lang J. Kinematic study of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine in the german shepherd dog. Parts I, II. Schweiz Arch Tierheilk 1993; 135: 35-43.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chambers JN, Selcer BA, Oliver JE. Results of treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs by exploration and excision. VCOT 1988; 03: 130-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Danielsson F, Sjostrom L. Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 91-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 De Risio L, Thomas WB, Sharp NJH. Degenerative lumbosacral stenosis. Vet Clinics of N America 2000; 30: 110-32.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 De Risio L, Sharp NJH, Olby NJ, Munana KR, Thomas WB. Predictors of outcome after dorsal decompressive laminectomy for degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs: 69 cases (1987-1997). JAVMA 2001; 219: 624-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Flynn J, Rudert MJ, Olson E, Bgaratz M, Hanley E. The effects of freezing or freeze-drying on the biomechanical properties of the canine intervertebral disc. Spine 1990; 15: 567-70.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hanna FY. Lumbosacral osteochondrosis: radiological features and surgical management in 34 dogs. JSAP 2001; 42: 272-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hill TP, Lubbe AM, Guthrie AJ. Lumbar spine stability following hemilaminectomy, pediculectomy and fenestration. VCOT 2000; 13: 165-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Janssens LA, Moens Y, Coppens P, Peremans K, Vinck H. Lumbosacral stenosis in the dog. VCOT 2000; 13: 97-103.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jones JC, Sorjonen DC, Simpson ST, Coates JR, Lenz SD, Hathcock JT, Agee MW, Bartels JE. Comparison between computed tomographic and surgical findings in nine large breed dogs with lumbosacral stenosis. Vet Rad and Ultrasound 1996; 37: 247-56.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jones JC, Shires PK, Inzana KD, Sponenberg DP, Massicotte C, Renberg W, Giroux A. Evaluation of canine lumbosacral stenosis using intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Vet Rad and Ultrasound 1999; 40: 108-15.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ledet EH, Sachs BL, Brunski JB, Gatto C, Donzelli PS. Real-time in vivo loading in the lumbar spine. Spine 2000; 25: 2595-600.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Morgan JP, Bailey CS. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae as a predisposing cause of cauda equina syndrome in german shepherd dogs: 161 cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993; 202: 1877-82.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Orendacova J, Cizkova D, Kafka J, Lukacova N, Marsala M, Sulla I, Marsala J, Katsube N. Cauda equina syndrome. Progress in Neurobiol 2001; 64: 613-37.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Palmer RH, Chambers JN. Canine lumbosacral diseases. Part I. Anatomy, pathophysiology and clinical presentation. Compend Cont Educ 1991; 13: 61-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Palmer RH, Chambers JN. Canine lumbosacral diseases. Part II. Definitive diagnosis, treatment andpPrognosis. Compend Cont Educ 1991; 13: 213-22.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Prata R. Cauda Equina Syndrome. In: Slatter DH. (ed). Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1991: 1094-105.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Weber U, Bergmann G. Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterised internal spinal fixation device. Spine 2000; 25: 2981-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schulz KS, Waldron DR, Grant JW, Shell L, Smith G, Shires PK. Biomechanics of the thoracolumbar vertebral column of dogs during lateral bending. AJVR 1996; 57: 1228-33.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Smith GK, Walter MC. Spinal decompressive procedures and dorsal compartment injuries: comparative biomechanical study in canine cadavers. AJVR 1988; 49: 266-73.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sjostrom L. Lumbosacral disorders. In: Slatter DH. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders: 2003: 1227-37.
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Walter MC, Smith GK, Newton CD. Canine lumbar spinal internal fixation techniques. A comparative biomechanical study. Vet Surg 1986; 02: 191-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wilke HJ, Neef P, Caimi M, Hoogland T, Claes LE. New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine 1999; 24: 755-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar