Animal models of spinal injury for studying back pain and SCI

Preclinical in vivo animal models of intervertebral disc degeneration. Part 1: A systematic review

Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD), a widely recognized cause of lower back pain, is the leading cause of disability worldwide. A myriad of preclinical in vivo animal models of IVDD have been described in the literature. There is a need for critical evaluation of these models to better inform researchers and clinicians to optimize study design and ultimately, enhance experimental outcomes. The purpose of this study was to conduct an extensive systematic literature review to report the variability of animal species, IVDD induction method, and experimental timepoints and endpoints used in in vivo IVDD preclinical research. A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed manuscripts featured on PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they reported an in vivo animal model of IVDD and included details of the species used, how disc degeneration was induced, and the experimental endpoints used for analysis. Two-hundred and fifty-nine (259) studies were reviewed. The most common species, IVDD induction method and experimental endpoint used was rodents(140/259, 54.05%), surgery (168/259, 64.86%) and histology (217/259, 83.78%), respectively. Experimental timepoint varied greatly between studies, ranging from 1 week (dog and rodent models), to >104 weeks in dog, horse, monkey, rabbit, and sheep models. The two most common timepoints used across all species were 4 weeks (49 manuscripts) and 12 weeks (44 manuscripts). A comprehensive discussion of the species, methods of IVDD induction and experimental endpoints is presented. There was great variability across all categories: animal species, method of IVDD induction, timepoints and experimental endpoints. While no animal model can replicate the human scenario, the most appropriate model should be selected in line with the study objectives to optimize experimental design, outcomes and improve comparisons between studies.

Controversies in spine research: Organ culture versus in vivo models for studies of the intervertebral disc

Intervertebral disc degeneration is a common cause of low back pain, the leading cause of disability worldwide. Appropriate preclinical models for intervertebral disc research are essential to achieving a better understanding of underlying pathophysiology and for the development, evaluation, and translation of more effective treatments. To this end, in vivo animal and ex vivo organ culture models are both widely used by spine researchers; however, the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches are a source of ongoing controversy. In this article, members from the Spine and Preclinical Models Sections of the Orthopedic Research Society, including experts in both basic and translational spine research, present contrasting arguments in support of in vivo animal models versus ex vivo organ culture models for studies of the disc, supported by a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the respective advantages and limitations of these approaches, and advance the field toward a consensus with respect to appropriate model selection and implementation. We conclude that complementary use of several model types and leveraging the unique advantages of each is likely to result in the highest impact research in most instances.

A systematic review of porcine models in translational pain research

Translating basic pain research from rodents to humans has proven to be a challenging task. Efforts have been made to develop preclinical large animal models of pain, such as the pig. However, no consistent overview and comparison of pig models of pain are currently available. Therefore, in this review, our primary aim was to identify the available pig models in pain research and compare these models in terms of intensity and duration. First, we systematically searched Proquest, Scopus and Web of Science and compared the duration for which the pigs were significantly sensitized as well as the intensity of mechanical sensitization. We searched models within the specific field of pain and adjacent fields in which pain induction or assessment is relevant, such as pig production. Second, we compared assessment methodologies in surrogate pain models in humans and pigs to identify areas of overlap and possible improvement. Based on the literature search, 23 types of porcine pain models were identified; 13 of which could be compared quantitatively. The induced sensitization lasted from hours to months and intensities ranged from insignificant to the maximum attainable. We also found a near to complete overlap of assessment methodologies between human and pig models within the area of peripheral neurophysiology, which allows for direct comparison of results obtained in the two species. In spite of this overlap, further development of pain assessment methodologies is still needed. We suggest that central nervous system electrophysiology, such as electroencephalography, electrocorticography or intracortical recordings, may pave the way for future objective pain assessment.