Literature DB >> 23362125

Variation in tibial functionality and fracture susceptibility among healthy, young adults arises from the acquisition of biologically distinct sets of traits.

Karl J Jepsen1, Rachel Evans, Charles H Negus, Joel J Gagnier, Amanda Centi, Tomer Erlich, Amir Hadid, Ran Yanovich, Daniel S Moran.   

Abstract

Physiological systems like bone respond to many genetic and environmental factors by adjusting traits in a highly coordinated, compensatory manner to establish organ-level function. To be mechanically functional, a bone should be sufficiently stiff and strong to support physiological loads. Factors impairing this process are expected to compromise strength and increase fracture risk. We tested the hypotheses that individuals with reduced stiffness relative to body size will show an increased risk of fracturing and that reduced strength arises from the acquisition of biologically distinct sets of traits (ie, different combinations of morphological and tissue-level mechanical properties). We assessed tibial functionality retrospectively for 336 young adult women and men engaged in military training, and calculated robustness (total area/bone length), cortical area (Ct.Ar), and tissue-mineral density (TMD). These three traits explained 69% to 72% of the variation in tibial stiffness (p < 0.0001). Having reduced stiffness relative to body size (body weight × bone length) was associated with odds ratios of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-4.3) and 7.0 (95% CI, 2.0-25.1) for women and men, respectively, for developing a stress fracture based on radiography and scintigraphy. K-means cluster analysis was used to segregate men and women into subgroups based on robustness, Ct.Ar, and TMD adjusted for body size. Stiffness varied 37% to 42% among the clusters (p < 0.0001, ANOVA). For men, 78% of stress fracture cases segregated to three clusters (p < 0.03, chi-square). Clusters showing reduced function exhibited either slender tibias with the expected Ct.Ar and TMD relative to body size and robustness (ie, well-adapted bones) or robust tibias with reduced residuals for Ct.Ar or TMD relative to body size and robustness (ie, poorly adapted bones). Thus, we show there are multiple biomechanical and thus biological pathways leading to reduced function and increased fracture risk. Our results have important implications for developing personalized preventative diagnostics and treatments.
Copyright © 2013 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23362125     DOI: 10.1002/jbmr.1879

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  19 in total

1.  Femoral Neck External Size but not aBMD Predicts Structural and Mass Changes for Women Transitioning Through Menopause.

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Andrew Kozminski; Erin Mr Bigelow; Stephen H Schlecht; Robert W Goulet; Sioban D Harlow; Jane A Cauley; Carrie Karvonen-Gutierrez
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  External Bone Size Is a Key Determinant of Strength-Decline Trajectories of Aging Male Radii.

Authors:  Erin Mr Bigelow; Daniella M Patton; Ferrous S Ward; Antonio Ciarelli; Michael Casden; Andrea Clark; Robert W Goulet; Michael D Morris; Stephen H Schlecht; Gurjit S Mandair; Todd L Bredbenner; David H Kohn; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 3.  The role of adaptive bone formation in the etiology of stress fracture.

Authors:  Julie M Hughes; Kristin L Popp; Ran Yanovich; Mary L Bouxsein; Ronald W Matheny
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2016-08-05

4.  How Does Bone Strength Compare Across Sex, Site, and Ethnicity?

Authors:  Stephen H Schlecht; Erin M R Bigelow; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Rib Geometry Explains Variation in Dynamic Structural Response: Potential Implications for Frontal Impact Fracture Risk.

Authors:  Michelle M Murach; Yun-Seok Kang; Samuel D Goldman; Michelle A Schafman; Stephen H Schlecht; Kevin Moorhouse; John H Bolte; Amanda M Agnew
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Mapping the natural variation in whole bone stiffness and strength across skeletal sites.

Authors:  Stephen H Schlecht; Erin M R Bigelow; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  Intracortical remodeling parameters are associated with measures of bone robustness.

Authors:  Haviva M Goldman; Naomi A Hampson; J Jared Guth; David Lin; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 2.064

Review 8.  Are we taking full advantage of the growing number of pharmacological treatment options for osteoporosis?

Authors:  Karl J Jepsen; Stephen H Schlecht; Kenneth M Kozloff
Journal:  Curr Opin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 5.547

9.  Genetic perturbations that impair functional trait interactions lead to reduced bone strength and increased fragility in mice.

Authors:  Lauren M Smith; Erin M R Bigelow; Bonnie T Nolan; Meghan E Faillace; Joseph H Nadeau; Karl J Jepsen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2014-07-06       Impact factor: 4.398

Review 10.  Biomechanical Basis of Predicting and Preventing Lower Limb Stress Fractures During Arduous Training.

Authors:  Thomas J O'Leary; Hannah M Rice; Julie P Greeves
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 5.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.