Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Jul;243(1):128-137.
doi: 10.1111/joa.13852. Epub 2023 Mar 17.

Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the kangaroo spine in comparison with human spinal data

Hans-Joachim Wilke  1 , Volker Michael Betz  1 , Annette Kienle  2
Affiliations
Review

Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the kangaroo spine in comparison with human spinal data

Hans-Joachim Wilke et al. J Anat. 2023 Jul.

Abstract

On the basis of the kangaroo's pseudo-biped locomotion and its upright position, it could be assumed that the kangaroo might be an interesting model for spine research and that it may serve as a reasonable surrogate model for biomechanical in vitro tests. The purpose of this in vitro study was to provide biomechanical properties of the kangaroo spine and compare them with human spinal data from the literature. In addition, references to already published kangaroo anatomical spinal parameters will be discussed. Thirteen kangaroo spines from C4 to S4 were sectioned into single-motion segments. The specimens were tested by a spine tester under pure moments. The range of motion and neutral zone of each segment were determined in flexion and extension, right and left lateral bending and left and right axial rotation. Overall, we found greater flexibility in the kangaroo spine compared to the human spine. Similarities were only found in the cervical, lower thoracic and lumbar spinal regions. The range of motion of the kangaroo and human spines displayed comparable trends in the cervical (C4-C7), lower thoracic and lumbar regions independent of the motion plane. In the upper and middle thoracic regions, the flexibility of the kangaroo spine was considerably larger. These results suggested that the kangaroo specimens could be considered to be a surrogate, but only in particular cases, for biomechanical in vitro tests.

Keywords: anatomy; animal model; biomechanics; flexibility; kangaroo; range of motion; spine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The skeleton of the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
The custom‐made spine tester.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
ROM and NZ (mean and standard deviation) of motion segments from the kangaroo spine (C4–C5 to S2–S3) in flexion/extension loaded with pure moments of My = ±2.5 Nm in the cervical and thoracic region and My = ± 7.5 Nm in the lumbar and sacral region.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
ROM and NZ (mean and standard deviation) of motion segments from the kangaroo spine (C4–C5 to S2–S3) in lateral bending right/left loaded with pure moments of Mx = ±2.5 Nm in the cervical and thoracic region and Mx = ± 7.5 Nm in the lumbar and sacral region.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
ROM and NZ (mean and standard deviation) of motion segments from the kangaroo spine (C4–C5 to S2–S3) in the axial rotation left/right loaded with pure moments of Mz = ±2.5 Nm in the cervical and thoracic region and Mz = ± 7.5 Nm in the lumbar and sacral region.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Comparison of ROM (means and standard deviation) from kangaroo and human spinal segments from C4–C5 to the sacrum for flexion/extension. Kangaroo data were determinate in this study, human data are adapted from White and Panjabi (1990) and compared with own published data (Richter et al., ; Schmieder et al., ; Schmoelz et al.,  ; Wilke et al., 2008, 2017, 2020).
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Comparison of ROM (means and standard deviation) from kangaroo and human spinal segments from C4–C5 to the sacrum for lateral bending right/left. Kangaroo data were determinate in this study, human data are adapted from White and Panjabi (1990) and compared with own published data (Richter et al., ; Schmieder et al., ; Schmoelz et al., ; Wilke et al., 2008, 2017, 2020).
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Comparison of ROM (means and standard deviation) from kangaroo and human spinal segments from C4–C5 to the sacrum for axial rotation left/right. Kangaroo data were determinate in this study, human data are adapted from White and Panjabi (1990) and compared with own published data (Richter et al., ; Schmieder et al., ; Schmoelz et al., ; Wilke et al., 2008, 2017, 2020).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akbay, A. , Bozkurt, G. , Ilgaz, O. , Palaoglu, S. , Akalan, N. & Benzel, E.C. (2008) A demineralized calf vertebra model as an alternative to classic osteoporotic vertebra models for pedicle screw pullout studies. European Spine Journal, 17, 468–473. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alini, M. , Eisenstein, S.M. , Ito, K. , Little, C. , Kettler, A.A. , Masuda, K. et al. (2008) Are animal models useful for studying human disc disorders/degeneration? European Spine Journal, 17, 2–19. - PMC - PubMed
    1. An, H.S. , Singh, K. , Vaccaro, A.R. , Wang, G. , Yoshida, H. , Eck, J. et al. (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, 257–262. - PubMed
    1. Aultman, C.D. , Drake, J.D. , Callaghan, J.P. & McGill, S.M. (2004) The effect of static torsion on the compressive strength of the spine: an in vitro analysis using a porcine spine model. Spine, 29, E304–E309. - PubMed
    1. Balasubramanian, S. , Peters, J.R. , Robinson, L.F. , Singh, A. & Kent, R.W. (2016) Thoracic spine morphology of a pseodo‐biped animal model (kangaroo) and comparisons with human and quadruped animals. European Spine Journal, 25, 4140–4154. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding