Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Rat Spine Fusion Models for Preclinical Research: Opportunities and Challenges

Lobao A., Rice SW., Chapman J., Stauff MP., Song J.

Narrative Review on Back & Spine, Systemic / IV, published in ACS Biomater Sci Eng (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
ACS Biomater Sci Eng (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41277865
PMCID
PMC12766858
DOI
10.1021/acsbiomaterials.5c01330

Abstract (original English)

Rodent models have gained popularity for assessing the efficacy and safety of experimental spine fusion methods in preclinical research, but variability in surgical technique, graft materials, and outcome assessment has limited standardization across studies. This review highlights key developments in rat spinal fusion models, focusing on the strengths and limitations of the surgical techniques applied and advancements in quantitative and qualitative outcome measures, aiming to identify opportunities for increased consistency in experimental designs. A comprehensive literature review was performed by using PubMed to include studies utilizing rat models for spinal fusion. Posterolateral intertransverse fusion remains the most widely used model, often employing autografts or biologically enhanced scaffolds as controls, while the Wiltse paraspinal approach is chosen when minimal invasiveness is favored. Functional fusion outcome assessments have evolved from manual palpation and traditional radiography to sophisticated microcomputed tomography (μCT) analyses along with histological scoring and serum marker analyses. Consensus biomechanical analyses of rodent spine fusion outcomes remain lacking. Emerging rodent data on the effects of pharmacologic agents, systemic conditions, and biologic implants on fusion show wide-ranging fusion rates from 0% to 100% across studies. Overall, th

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
SpineAnimalsRatsSpinal FusionModels, AnimalX-Ray Microtomography

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research