Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Spine J. 2008 May 20;9(3):204–209. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.01.014

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Comparison of apparent shear modulus (G) for rat (present study, a) lumbar, axially loaded, b) caudal, axially loaded, c) lumbar, pure torsion, d) caudal, pure torsion) and human. Cases e) to g) are from axially loaded human motion segments: e) Kleinstueck et al. [20], f) Abumi et al. [17], and g) Beckstein et al. [19]. Cases h) to l) correspond to human motion segments tested in pure torsion: h) Farfan et al. [22], i) McGlashen et al. [18]. Data from j) healthy discs and k) discs with annular tears are from Haughton et al. [21]. In cases that do not show error bars the source reports only an average value. Human apparent modulus was calculated as either tangent or secant modulus as described in Elliott and Sarver [2]