| Literature DB >> 26032214 |
K-S Leung1, Y-H Li2, Y Liu2, H Wang2, K-F Tam1, D Hk Chow1, Y Wan2, S Ling2, Z Dai2, L Qin1,3, W-H Cheung1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate deterioration of musculoskeletal system due to prolonged disuse and the potential of daily short-duration weight-bearing as countermeasures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26032214 PMCID: PMC5133725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact ISSN: 1108-7161 Impact factor: 2.041
Harvesting and isolation of musculoskeletal tissues for systemic evaluations.
| Musculoskeletal Systems for Evaluation | pQCT Measurements | Other Assessments |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | N/A | Body weight |
| Bone | iBMD (F, T) | N/A |
| tBMD (F, T) | ||
| Bone CSA (F, T) | ||
| Cortical CSA (F, T) | ||
| CSMI (F, T) | ||
| Muscle | Mid-tibia CSA | Muscle mass (EDL, Sol) |
| Bone-tendon insertion | N/A | Tensile strength (PPT) |
The brackets indicate the targeted tissue for the corresponding assessments. F: Femur; T: Tibia; EDL: Extensor Digitorum Longus; Sol: Soleus muscle; PPT: Patella-patellar tendon; iBMD: Integral bone mineral density; tBMD: Trabecular bone mineral density; CSA: Cross-section area; CSMI: Cross-sectional moment of inertia; N/A: Not Applicable.
Figure 1Setup for mechanical testing for obtaining maximal tensile strength. A: A custom-made jig for tensile test for the quadriceps-patellapatellar tendon-tibia (QPPTT) complex. B: The testing jig consisted of an upper clamp that secured the patella together with the distal quadriceps, and a lower clamp that gripped the proximal tibia. A piece of sand paper was placed between the clamps to increase the friction between the clamp and the patella.
Figure 2Body weight of rats from different groups after four weeks of treatment. CG showed significantly higher tensile strength than that of TG and WBG. No significant difference was detected between TG and WBG. *: p<0.05.
Comparison among different treatment groups with respect to bone quality of femur and tibia.
| Femur | Tibia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pQCT Variables | CG | TG (%) | WBG (%) | CG | TG (%) | WBG (%) |
| iBMD (g/cm3) | 730.6±35.9[ | 660.0±51.9 (90.3) | 601.2±41.4 (82.2) | 717.1±40.4[ | 668.5±69.2 (93.2) | 655.4±28.6 (91.4) |
| tBMD (g/cm3) | 495.94±24.6[ | 420.39±44.2 (84.8) | 424.14±10.3 (85.5) | 402.2±33.6[ | 385.0±11.4 (95.7) | 354.1±51.0 (88.0) |
| Bone CSA (mm2) | 16.58±2.03[ | 11.60±0.61 (70.0) | 11.35±1.12 (68.5) | 9.29±0.53[ | 7.93±0.40 (85.4) | 7.43±0.52 (80.0) |
| Cortical CSA (mm2) | 9.73±1.13[ | 6.27±0.53 (64.4) | 5.47±0.49 (56.2) | 5.29±0.30[ | 4.50±0.44 (85.1) | 3.99±0.19 (75.4) |
| CSMIx (mm4) | 12.23±3.59[ | 5.86±1.13 (47.9) | 5.54±1.15 (45.3) | 4.71±1.22[ | 3.59±0.40 (76.2) | 3.00±0.29 (63.7) |
| CSMIy (mm4) | 14.54±2.91[ | 7.42±0.92 (51.0) | 5.85±2.35 (40.2) | 3.47±0.53[ | 2.20±0.31 (63.4) | 1.96±0.19 (56.5) |
| CSMIpolar (mm4) | 26.77±6.24[ | 13.28±1.05 (49.6) | 11.39±1.94 (42.5) | 8.17±1.09[ | 5.79±0.61 (70.9) | 4.97±0.43 (60.8) |
Note: the percentage in the brackets represent the percentage of current assessment corresponds to CG. pQCT: peripheral quantitative computed tomography; iBMD: integral bone mineral density (BMD); tBMD: trabecular BMD; CSA: cross-sectional area; CSMI: cross-sectional moment of inertia; Number in brackets represent the percentage of the value compared to that of CG;
p<0.05 vs. TG;
p<0.05 vs. WBG.
Figure 3Weight of soleus muscle in different groups. CG showed significantly higher value than that of WBG. *: p<0.05.
Figure 4Weight of extensor digitorum longus muscle (EDL) in different groups. CG showed significantly higher weight than those of TG and WBG. *: p<0.05.
Figure 5The cross-sectional area (CSA) of muscle at the mid tibia. CG showed significantly higher CSA than that of WBG. *: p<0.05.
Figure 6Tensile strength of the patella - patellar tendon (PPT) complex of different groups. CG showed significantly higher failure strength than that of TG and WBG. *: p<0.05.