Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Research Article

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2006)

An approach to compare the quality of cancellous bone from the femoral necks of healthy and osteoporotic patients through compression testing and microcomputed tomography imaging

  • Anthony Ciarallo
  • Jake Barralet
  • Michael Tanzer
  • Richard Kremer
DOI
https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v9i2.665
Submitted
November 8, 2020
Published
2020-12-01

Abstract

It is estimated that osteoporosis is responsible for about 300 000 hip fractures per year in the United States. Effective prevention of these fractures has been demonstrated using bisphosphonates. However, their mechanism of action has not been elucidated. Furthermore, the precise effect of bisphosphonates on the femoral neck and surrounding areas has never been studied. We are interested in establishing a protocol to analyze the bone quality of proximal femurs from patients treated with bisphosphonates. Following hip replacement surgery, the aim is to determine whether imaging and compression testing of cancellous bone from the discarded femoral necks can accurately assess the bone’s microarchitectural and biomechanical properties, respectively. To validate the technique, it was first tested on an untreated population. A bone biopsy trephine was used to extract cylindrical cores of trabecular bone from the centre of femoral necks. Densitometry, microcomputed tomography, and compression testing were used to assess the quality of bone in these samples. The compressive strength was found to be directly proportional to the modulus (i.e. stiffness) of the samples, thus reproducing previous findings. The relative porosity and, to a lesser extent, the bone mineral density were capable of predicting the quality of cancellous bone. In conclusion, a protocol to analyze the bone quality in human femoral necks using μCT and biomechanical compression testing was successfully established. It will be applied in a clinical setting to analyze bones from bisphosphonate-treated patients following total hip replacement.

References

  1. WHO, Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis, in Report of a WHO study group. WHO technical report series no. 8430. 1994, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland.
  2. Boonen, S., et al., Preventing osteoporotic fractures with antiresorptive therapy: implications of microarchitectural changes. J Intern Med, 2004; 255(1): p. 1-12.
  3. Seeman, E., Invited Review: Pathogenesis of osteoporosis. J Appl Physiol, 2003; 95(5): p. 2142-51.
  4. Russell, R.G., et al., The pharmacology of bisphosphonates and new insights into their mechanisms of action. J Bone Miner Res, 1999; 14(Suppl 2): p. 53-65.
  5. Manolagas, S.C., Birth and death of bone cells: basic regulatory mechanisms and implications for the pathogenesis and treatment of osteoporosis. Endocr Rev, 2000; 21(2): p. 115-37.
  6. Black, D.M., et al., Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures.Fracture Intervention Trial Research Group. Lancet, 1996; 348(9041): p. 1535-41.
  7. Ensrud, K.E., et al., Treatment with alendronate prevents fractures in women at highest risk: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial. Arch Intern Med, 1997; 157(22): p. 2617-24.
  8. Harris, S.T., et al., Effects of risedronate treatment on vertebral and nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial. Vertebral Efficacy With Risedronate Therapy (VERT) Study Group. Jama, 1999; 282(14): p. 1344-52.
  9. Day, J.S., et al., Bisphosphonate treatment affects trabecular bone apparent modulus through micro-architecture rather than matrix properties. J Orthop Res, 2004; 22(3): p. 465-71.
  10. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Jama, 2001; 285(6): p. 785-95.
  11. Borah, B., et al., Risedronate preserves bone architecture in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis as measured by three-dimensional microcomputed tomography. Bone, 2004; 34(4): p. 736-46.
  12. Passi, N. and A. Gefen, Trabecular bone contributes to strength of the proximal femur under mediolateral impact in the avian. J Biomech Eng, 2005; 127(1): p. 198-203.
  13. Rosenthall, L., J.D. Bobyn, and M. Tanzer, Bone densitometry: influence of prosthetic design and hydroxyapatite coating on regional adaptive bone remodeling. Int Orthop, 1999; 23(6): p.325-9.
  14. Panjabi, M.M., et al., Biomechanical time-tolerance of fresh cadaveric human spine specimens. J Orthop Res, 1985; 3(3): p. 292-300.
  15. Currey, J.D., The mechanical properties of bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1970; 73: p. 209-31.
  16. Price, W., Factors influencing concrete strength. J Am Con Inst, 1995; 31: p. 417-33.
  17. Linde, F. and H.C. Sorensen, The effect of different storage methods on the mechanical properties of trabecular bone. J Biomech, 1993; 26(10): p. 1249-52.
  18. Hodgskinson, R. and J.D. Currey, Effects of structural variation on Young's modulus of non-human cancellous bone. Proc Inst Mech Eng (H), 1990; 204(1): p. 43-52.
  19. Hodgskinson, R. and J.D. Currey, The effect of variation in structure on the Young's modulus of cancellous bone: a comparison of human and non-human material. Proc Inst Mech Eng (H), 1990; 204(2): p. 115-21.
  20. Martens, M., et al., The mechanical characteristics of cancellous bone at the upper femoral region. J Biomech, 1983; 16(12): p. 971-83.
  21. Lotz, J.C., E.J. Cheal, and W.C. Hayes, Stress distributions within the proximal femur during gait and falls: implications for osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporos Int, 1995; 5(4): p. 252-61.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.