Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Surgery and Radiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

3 Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

4 Department of Companion Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Abstract

Rabbits are commonly used in researches but despite their wide usage, knowledge of normal structure of various parts of lumbosacral and coccygeal vertebrae with computed tomography (SC) is obscure. On the other hand, scrutinizing of structures in these regions in their natural status can bring about more accurate diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for clinicians and surgeons. The goal of this study was to provide an exhaustive descriptive and morphometric assessment of lumbosacral and coccygeal vertebrae in rabbits with computed tomography. In this article morphometric parameters in 2D CT images of 10 healthy, mature, white New Zealand rabbits were measured. End plate height (EPH) had no significant difference through lumbosacral and coccygeal vertebrae but other parameters such as vertebral body height (VBH), spinous process height (SPH), transverse process length (TPL), transverse process width (TPW), spinous process angle (SPA), transverse process angle (TPA) and vertebral body length (VBL) had significant differences. Spinal canal depth (SCD) had an invariable measure from the first lumbar vertebra up to the third sacral vertebra and decreased at the location of the fourth sacral vertebra and was invariable up to the second coccygeal vertebra. Pedicle width (PDW) had an invariable measure from the first cervical vertebra up to the second coccygeal vertebra. In conclusion computed tomographic anatomy of lumbosacral and coccygeal vertebrae in white New Zealand rabbits were evaluated and different parts of vertebrae were described.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Tan SH, Teo EC, Chua HC. Quantitative three-dimensional anatomy of cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae of Chinese Singaporeans. European Spine Journal. 2004; 13(2): 137-146.
  2. Proks P, Stehlik L, Nyvltova I, Necas A, Vignoli M, Jekl V. Vertebral formula and congenital abnormalities of the vertebral column in rabbits. Veterinary Journal. 2018; 236: 80–88.
  3. Osofsky A, LeCouteur RA, Vernau KM. Functional neuroanatomy of the domestic rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Exotic Animal Practice. 2007; 10(3): 713.
  4. Alfraihat A, Olson JC, Snyder BD, Cahill PJ, Balasubramanian S. Thoracic vertebral morphology in normal and scoliosis deformity in skeletally immature rabbits: a longitudinal study. JOR Spine. 2020; 3(4): e1118.
  5. Ohlerth S, G Scharf . Computed tomography in small animals–Basic principles and state of the art applications. The Veterinary Journal. 2017; 173(2): 254-271.
  6. Zotti A, T Banzato, B Cozzi. Cross-sectional anatomy of the rabbit neck and trunk: comparison of computed tomography and cadaver anatomy. Research in Veterinary Science. 2019; 87(2): 171-176.
  7. Van Caelenberg AI, De Rycke LM, Hermans K, Verhaert L, van Bree HJ, Gielen IM. Computed tomography and cross-sectional anatomy of the head in healthy rabbits. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 2010; 71(3): 293-303.
  8. Da Costa RC, VF Samii. Advanced imaging of the spine in small animals. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice. 2010; 40(5): 765-790.
  9. Zhou RP, Zhang ZM, Wang L, Huang MJ, Zheng XC, Cui YN, Yin M, Wang XK, Yao NZ, Chen TY, Chen J. Establishing a disc degeneration model using computed tomography-guided percutaneous puncture technique in the rabbit. Journal of Surgical Research. 2013;181(2): e65-e74.
  10. Axlund T, J Hudson. Computed tomography of the normal lumbosacral inter vertebral disc in 22 dogs. Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound. 2003; 44(6): 630-634.
  11. Sheng SR, Wang XY, Xu HZ, Zhu GQ, Zhou YF. Anatomy of large animal spines and its comparison to the human spine: a systematic review. European Spine Journal. 2010; 19(1): 46-56.
  12. Jeffcott LB. Radiographic Features of the Normal Equine Thoracolumbar Spine. Veterinary Radiology. 1979; 20(3‐6): 140-147.
  13. Cotterill PC, Kostuik JP, D'angelo G, Fernie GR, Maki BE. An anatomical comparison of the human and bovine thoracolumbar spine. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 1986; 4(3): 298-303.
  14. Mohamed SKA, El-Hady E. Comparison of back and loin locomotor bony structures in cat (Felis domestica) and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus): (thoracic and lumbar vertebrae). Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2019; 7(10): 819-828.
  15. Shateri Amiri B, Soroori S, Zehtabvar O, Rostami A, Soflaei R. Computed tomographic and morphometric study of cervical vertebrae in healthy white New Zealand Rabbit (Oryctolagus Cuniculus). Iranian Journal of Veterinary Medicine. 2020; 14(4): 421-31. Evangelopoulos DS, Kontovazenitis P, Kouris S, Zlatidou X, Benneker LM, Vlamis JA, Efstathopoulos N. Computerized tomographic morphometric analysis of the cervical spine. The Open Orthopaedics Journal. 2012; 6: 250.
  16. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. 2011; 220.
  17. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Wenger KH, Claes LE. Anatomy of the sheep spine and its comparison to the human spine. The Anatomical Record. 1997; 247(4): 542-555.