At the moment of occurrence of a fragility hip fracture, men have higher mechanical properties values in comparison with women

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Helena Canhão²  Maria F Vaz¹  João E Fonseca²  Jacinto Monteiro³  Luís G Rosa¹  Pedro M Amaral⁵  Ana Rodrigues²  Joana Caetano-Lopes⁴  André Saraiva⁵  Miguel Lúcio⁵  Inês P Aleixo⁴  Ana C Vale⁵ 

[1] Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Instituto Superior Técnico, UL, Av. Rovisco Pais, Lisbon, Portugal;Serviço de Reumatologia e Doenças Ósseas Metabólicas, Lisbon Academic Medical Centre, Lisbon, Portugal;Serviço de Ortopedia, Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal;Rheumatology Research Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal;Instituto de Ciência e Engenharia de Materiais e Superfícies, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, Lisbon, Portugal

关键词: Mechanical properties;    Compression;    Fragility fracture;    Osteoporosis;    Trabecular bone;   

Others  :  1129471
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-14-295

 received in 2012-04-30, accepted in 2013-10-01,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

It is well established that males have lower fracture risk in comparison with females, which suggests a higher bone resistance in men. The aim of our study was to find out if in older patients with hip fragility fractures, gender has also an impact on trabecular bone material behaviour, specifically to determine whether trabecular mechanical properties under compressive loading differ between men and women who suffered a fragility hip fracture.

Methods

Femoral epiphyses were consecutively collected during hip replacement surgery due to proximal femur fragility fracture. Trabecular bone cylinders were drilled and submitted to uniaxial compression tests and mechanical properties were assessed.

Results

Seventy-three patients, 55 women (mean age 81 years and standard deviation of 7 years) and 18 men (mean age 81 years and standard deviation of 8 years) were evaluated. The ultimate stress of trabecular bone was significantly higher in men than in women: the median values and the interquartile range (IQR) were respectively 8.04(5.35-10.90) MPa vs. 4.46(3.02-7.73) MPa, (p-value = 0.005). The same difference between male and female was observed in the Young’s modulus: 293.68(166.67-538.18) MPa vs. 174.26(73.07-322.28) MPa, (p-value = 0.028), and also in the energy to failure: 0.25(0.07-0.42) MJ/m³ vs. 0.11(0.05-0.25) MJ/m³, (p-value = 0.058). These differences were also verified after adjusting the analysis for age in a multivariate model analysis.

Conclusions

Our observations demonstrated that, even in a population who suffered a fragility hip fracture, men still have higher trabecular bone mechanical properties in comparison with women.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Vale et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gagnon C, Li V, Ebeling PR: Osteoporosis in men: its pathophysiology and the role of teriparatide in its treatment. Clin Interv Aging 2008, 3:635-645.
• [2]Geusens P, Dinant G: Integrating a gender dimension into osteoporosis and fracture risk research. Gend Med 2007, 4:147-161.
• [3]Giangregorio L, Dolovich L, Cranney A, et al.: Osteoporosis risk perceptions among patients who have sustained a fragility fracture. Patient. Edu. Couns. 2009, 74:213-220.
• [4]Gregory JS, Aspden RM: Femoral geometry as a risk factor for osteoporotic hip fracture in men and women. Med Eng Phys 2008, 30:1275-1286.
• [5]Raisz LG: Pathogenesis of osteoporosis: concepts, conflicts, and prospects. J Clin Invest 2005, 115:3318-3325.
• [6]Saag KG, Geusens P: Progress in osteoporosis and fracture prevention: focus on postmenopausal women. Arthritis Res Ther 2009, 11:1-18.
• [7]van Helden S, van Geel AC, Geusens PP, et al.: Bone and fall-related fracture risks in women and men with a recent clinical fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:241-248.
• [8]Hernandez CJ, Keaveny TM: A biomechanical perspective on bone quality. Bone 2006, 39:1173-1181.
• [9]Thomas CD, Mayhew PM, Power J, et al.: Femoral neck trabecular bone: loss with aging and role in preventing fracture. J Bone Miner Res 2009, 24:1808-1818.
• [10]Weinans H: Architectural changes independent of bone mineral in osteoporosis. J. Musculoskel. Neuron Interact. 2002, 2:535-537.
• [11]Johnell O, Kanis JA: An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 2006, 17:1726.
• [12]Bouxsein ML, Melton LJ, Riggs BL, et al.: Age- and sex-specific differences in the factor of risk for vertebral fracture: a population-based study using QCT. J Bone Miner Res 2006, 21:1475-1482.
• [13]Duan Y, Beck TJ, Wang X-F, Seeman E: Structural and biomechanical basis of sexual dimorphism in femoral neck fragility has its origins in growth and aging. J Bone Miner Res 2003, 18:1766-1774.
• [14]Hudelmaier M, Kollstedt A, Lochmüller EM, et al.: Gender differences in trabecular bone architecture of the distal radius assessed with magnetic resonance imaging and implications for mechanical competence. Osteoporos Int 2005, 16:1124-1133.
• [15]Seeman E: The structural basis of bone fragility in men. Bone 1999, 25:143-147.
• [16]Seeman E: During aging, men lose less bone than women because they gain more periosteal bone, not because they resorb less endosteal bone. Calcif Tissue Int 2001, 69:205-208.
• [17]Seeman E: The structural and biomechanical basis of the gain and loss of bone strength in women and men. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2003, 32:25-38.
• [18]Seeman E: Bone’s material and structural strength. Curr Opin Orthop 2007, 18:494-498.
• [19]Zhang F, Tan L-J, Lei S-F, Deng H-W: The differences of femoral neck geometric parameters: effects of age, gender and race. Osteoporos Int 2010, 21:1205-1214.
• [20]Jordan KM, Cooper C: Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2002, 16:795-806.
• [21]Seeman E: Structural basis of growth-related gain and age-related loss of bone strength. Bone 2008, 47:2-8.
• [22]Wang X-F, Duan Y, Beck TJ, Seeman E: Varying contributions of growth and ageing to racial and sex differences in femoral neck structure and strength in old age. Bone 2005, 36:978-986.
• [23]Ammann P, Rizzoli R: Bone strength and its determinants. Osteoporos Int 2003, 14:13-18.
• [24]Cory E, Nazarian A, Entezari V, Vartanians V, Müller R, Snyder BD: Compressive axial mechanical properties of rat bone as functions of bone volume fraction, apparent density and micro-CT based mineral density. J. Biomechanics 2010, 43:953-960.
• [25]Kopperdahl DL, Keaveny TM: Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. J. Biomechanics 1998, 31:601-608.
• [26]Mueller TL, van Lenthe GH, Stauber M, Gratzke C: Regional, age and gender differences in architectural measures of bone quality and their correlation to bone mechanical competence in the human radius of an elderly population. Bone 2009, 45:882-891.
• [27]Silva MJ: Biomechanics of osteoporotic fractures. Injury 2007, 38:69-76.
• [28]Ciarelli TE, Fyhrie DP, Schaffler MB, Goldstein SA: Variations in three-dimensional cancellous bone architecture of the proximal femur in female hip fractures and in controls. J Bone Miner Res 2000, 15:32-40.
• [29]Goldstein SA, Goulet R, McCubbrey D: Measurement and significance of three-dimensional architecture to the mechanical integrity of trabecular bone. Calcif Tissue Int 1993, 53:127-132.
• [30]Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM: Mechanisms of uniformity of yield strains for trabecular bone. J Biomech 2004, 37:1671-1678.
• [31]Li B, Aspden RM: Composition and mechanical properties of cancellous bone from the femoral head of patients with osteoporosis or osteoarthritis. J Bone Miner Res 1997, 12:641-651.
• [32]Caetano-Lopes J, Nery AM, Henriques R, Canhão H, Duarte J, Amaral PM, Moura RA, Pereira PA, Weinmann P, Abdulghani S, Souto-Carneiro M, Rego P, Monteiro J, Sakagushi S, Queiroz MV, Konttinen YT, Graça L, Vaz MF, Fonseca JE: Chronic arthritis directly induces quantitative and qualitative bone disturbances leading to compromised biomechanical properties. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2009, 27:475-482.
• [33]van der Linden JC, Birkenhäger-Frenkel DH, Verhaar JA, Weinans H: Trabecular bone’s mechanical properties are affected by its non-uniform mineral distribution. J Biomech 2001, 34:1573-1580.
• [34]Morgan EF, Keaveny TN: Dependence of yield strain of trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech 2001, 34:569-577.
• [35]Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM: Trabecular bone modulus-density relationship depends on anatomic site. J Biomech 2003, 36:897-904.
• [36]Nazarian A, Muller J, Zurakowski D, Müller R, Snyder BD: Densitometric, morphometric and mechanical distributions in the human proximal femur. J Biomech 2007, 40:2573-2579.
• [37]Homminga J, McCreadie BR, Ciarelli TE, Weinans H, Goldstein SA, Huiskes R: Cancellous bone mechanical properties from normals and patients with hip differ on the structure level not on the bone hard tissue level. Bone 2002, 30:759-764.
• [38]Sun S-S, Ma H-L, Liu C-L, Huang CH, Cheng CK, Wei HW: Difference in femoral head and neck material properties between osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Clin Biomech 2008, 23:39-47.
• [39]Woo DG, Kim CH, Lim D, Kim HS: Experimental and simulated studies on the plastic mechanical characteristics of osteoporotic vertebral trabecular bone. Curr Appl Phys 2010, 10:729-733.
• [40]Fratzl P, Weinkamer R: Nature’s hierarchical materials. Prog Mater Sci 2007, 52:1263-1334.
• [41]Gibson L, Ashby M (Eds): Cellular Solids, Structure and Properties. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
• [42]Wang X, Shen X, Li X, Mauli Agrawal C: Age-related changes in the collagen network and toughness of bone. Bone 2002, 31:1-7.
• [43]Fratzl-Zelman N, Roschger P, Gourrier A, Weber M, Misof BM, Loveridge N, Reeve J, Klaushofer K, Fratzl P: Combination of nanoindentation and quantitative backscattered electron imaging revealed altered bone material properties associated with femoral neck fragility. Calcif Tissue Int 2009, 85:335-43.
• [44]Chen H, Zhou X, Shoumura S, Emura S, Bunai Y: Age- and gender-dependent changes in three-dimensional microstructure of cortical and trabecular bone at the human femoral neck. Osteoporos Int 2010, 21:627-636.
• [45]Djuric M, Djonic D, Milovanovic P, Nikolic S, Marshall R, Marinkovic J, Hahn M: Region-specific sex-dependent pattern of age-related changes of proximal femoral cancellous bone and its implications on differential bone fragility. Calcif Tissue Int 2010, 86:192-201.
• [46]Cui W-Q, Won Y-Y, Baek M-H, Lee D-H, Chung Y-S, Hur J-H, Ma Y-Z: Age-and region-dependent changes in three-dimensional microstructural properties of proximal femoral trabeculae. Osteoporos Int 2008, 19:1579-1587.
• [47]Busse B, Hahn M, Soltau M, Zustin J, Püschel K, Duda GN, Amling M: Increased calcium content and inhomogeneity of mineralization render bone toughness in osteoporosis: mineralization, morphology and biomechanics of human single trabeculae. Bone 2009, 45:1034-1043.
• [48]Milovanovic P, Potocnik J, Djonic D, Nikolic S, Zivkovic V, Djuric M, Rakocevic Z: Age-related deterioration in trabecular bone mechanical properties at material level: nanoindentation study of the femoral neck in women by using AFM. Exp Gerontol 2012, 47:154-159.
• [49]Milovanovic P, Djuric M, Rakocevic Z: Age-dependence of power spectral density and fractal dimension of bone mineralized matrix in atomic force microscope topography images: potential correlates of bone tissue age and bone fragility in female femoral neck trabeculae. J Anat 2012, 221:427-33.
• [50]Vale AC, Pereira MFC, Maurício A, Amaral P, Rosa LG, Lopes A, Rodrigues A, Caetano-Lopes J, Vidal B, Monteiro J, Fonseca JE, Canhão H, Vaz MF: Micro-computed tomography and compressive characterization of trabecular bone. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects-In Press, Corrected Proof; 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2013.01.057 webcite