Difference in spinal fusion process in osteopenic and nonosteopenic living rat models using serial microcomputed tomography

6Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To identify and investigate differences in spinal fusion between the normal and osteopenic spine in a rat model. Methods: Female Sprague Dawley rats underwent either an ovariectomy (OVX) or sham operation and were randomized into two groups: non-OVX group and OVX group. Eight weeks after OVX, unilateral lumbar spinal fusion was performed using autologous iliac bone. Bone density (BD) was measured 2 days and 8 weeks after fusion surgery. Microcomputed tomography was used to evaluate the process of bone fusion every two weeks for 8 weeks after fusion surgery. The fusion rate, fusion process, and bone volume parameters of fusion bed were compared between the two groups. Results: BD was significantly higher in the non-OVX group than in the OVX group 2 days and 8 weeks after fusion surgery. The fusion rate in the non-OVX group was higher than that in the OVX group 8 weeks after surgery (p=0.044). The bony connection of bone fragments with transverse processes and bone formation between transverse processes in non-OVX group were significantly superior to those of OVX group from 6 weeks after fusion surgery. The compactness and bone maturation of fusion bed in non-OVX were prominent compared with the non-OVX group. Conclusion: The fusion rate in OVX group was inferior to non-OVX group at late stage after fusion surgery. Bone maturation of fusion bed in the OVX group was inferior compared with the non-OVX group. Fusion enhancement strategies at early stage may be needed to patients with osteoporosis who need spine fusion surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, S. B., Yang, H. J., Kim, C. H., & Chung, C. K. (2017). Difference in spinal fusion process in osteopenic and nonosteopenic living rat models using serial microcomputed tomography. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 60(3), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2016.0707.002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free