Table 1.
Pros and cons of using animal models of human osteomyelitis.
| Species | Pros [1,2,3,134,135,136,137,138,139] | Cons [1,2,3,134,135,136,137,138,139] |
|---|---|---|
| Small models | Evaluation of pathophysiology and novel treatment strategies | Failure in systemic antibiotic treatment evaluation studies due to the physiology of the gastrointestinal tract |
| Adaptable to pathological conditions (easy manipulation) | Very small joints–in situ examination is impossible | |
| Development of well-characterized mouse strains (knock-out or transgenic models) | Limitations associated with existing surgical approaches | |
| Use of specific and well-known antibodies | Limited or rapid cortical remodeling | |
| Bone turnover is similar to human | Cortical bone composition (e.g., hydroxyproline and protein content) differs from that of humans | |
| Biohazard risk related to handling infected animals (infected bites) | ||
| Growth plates never close in mice and rats | ||
| Ethical concerns | ||
| Large models | Higher life span | Ethical concerns |
| Larger skeletal surfaces allow mimicking internal and external fixation techniques and implants commonly used in humans | High cost (breeding, manipulation) | |
| Rate of osteogenesis (sheep and goat) | Higher rate of bone growth than humans (porcine) | |
| High similarity to human bones in density and mineral composition (dog and porcine) | Bones are denser and present fewer Harversian canals (sheep) |