Literature DB >> 2795323

Structural consequences of endosteal metastatic lesions in long bones.

J A Hipp1, R J McBroom, E J Cheal, W C Hayes.   

Abstract

Lytic metastatic lesions from breast, prostate, and other cancers often develop on the endosteal surface of a long bone without penetrating the cortical wall. Current clinical guidelines for determining the fracture risk associated with these endosteal defects do not account for the structural consequences of the lesion. We undertook a combined experimental and analytical study of the structural consequences of the lesions with the ultimate goal of providing improved fracture risk guidelines. Endosteal defects of variable length and involving a variable amount of the cortical wall were created with an expanding reamer in canine femurs. The contralateral femur served as a control. The femurs were tested to failure in four point bending. The geometry of the experimental defects was determined from radiographs and CT. Finite element models of the canine femurs were then used to examine geometric and material parameters in both four point bending and in torsion. The experimental data demonstrate a linear relation between bone strength and amount of cortical wall remaining: % intact strength = 99.6 x remaining wall thickness - 2.0, R2 = 0.769, standard deviation of regression = 11.57. Four of five data points from the linear finite element models were within the 95% confidence intervals for the experimental data. Experimental and finite element data suggest that the minimum wall thickness is the most critical geometric parameter for predicting the structural consequences of endosteal defects. The length of the defect along the bones' long axis has little effect on bone strength. The anelastic behavior of bone does not need to be represented in finite element models of simple endosteal defects because the defects do not cause significant stress concentrations. However, reduction in the modulus of bone along the border of a defect (due to osteolytic changes) can significantly reduce bone strength. These results indicate that the minimum wall thickness should be determined when clinically evaluating an endosteal defect. The results also suggest that information on bone porosity around metastatic lesions should be considered when making estimates of bone strength.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2795323     DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100070609

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  6 in total

1.  Strength reductions of thoracic vertebrae in the presence of transcortical osseous defects: effects of defect location, pedicle disruption, and defect size.

Authors:  M J Silva; J A Hipp; D P McGowan; T Takeuchi; W C Hayes
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Geometric mismatch analysis of retrograde nail in the Asian femur.

Authors:  Nattapon Chantarapanich; Banchong Mahaisavariya; Pongwit Siribodhi; Kriskrai Sitthiseripratip
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2011-04-24       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Theoretical relationship between maximum pore size and toughness in experimental inflammatory arthritis.

Authors:  M W Pysklywec; E R Bogoch
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.896

4.  Biomechanical performance of retrograde nail for supracondylar fractures stabilization.

Authors:  Nattapon Chantarapanich; Kriskrai Sitthiseripratip; Banchong Mahaisavariya; Pongwit Siribodhi
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Vascularised endosteal bone tissue in armoured sauropod dinosaurs.

Authors:  Anusuya Chinsamy; Ignacio Cerda; Jaime Powell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Pre-Osteoblasts Stimulate Migration of Breast Cancer Cells via the HGF/MET Pathway.

Authors:  Sonia Vallet; Muhammad Hasan Bashari; Feng-Juan Fan; Stefano Malvestiti; Andreas Schneeweiss; Patrick Wuchter; Dirk Jäger; Klaus Podar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.