| Literature DB >> 33176818 |
Zongyi Wu1, Bingzhang Wang1, Jiahao Tang1, Bingli Bai1, Sheji Weng1, Zhongjie Xie1, Zijian Shen1, Deyi Yan1, Liang Chen1, Jingdong Zhang2, Lei Yang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the change of subchondral bone collagen and trabecular bone in the weight-bearing area of femoral head from patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis of femoral head (ONFH), and discuss the effect of collagen degradation on OA and ONFH.Entities:
Keywords: Collagen fibers; Femoral head; Osteoarthritis; Osteonecrosis; Subchondral bone
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33176818 PMCID: PMC7659206 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-02065-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Diagrams of sample preparing procedures. a Area marked in red indicated weight-bearing area of femoral head. b Weight-bearing area measured 7 mm below the articular surface. c Subchondral bone obtained for testing and five SEM observation points
Comparison of baseline characteristics in three groups
| FNF group ( | OA group ( | ONFH group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 62~70 (65.4 ± 2.76) | 60~70 (64.6 ± 3.10) | 60~69 (64.9 ±2.88) | 0.843 |
| Gender(male/female) | 4/6 | 7/3 | 6/4 | 0.531 |
| BMD(T-score) | − 2.3~− 1.1 (− 1.83 ± 0.41) | − 2.4~− 1.4 (− 1.78 ± 0.32) | − 2.4~− 1.2 (− 1.82 ± 0.40) | 0.957 |
| Left/Right BMI | 7/3 19.26~25.08 (22.40 ± 2.55) | 5/5 20.18~25.30 (23.15 ± 2.09) | 6/4 18.94~24.21 (22.05 ± 2.15) | 0.893 0.458 |
FNF femoral neck fracture, OA osteoarthritis, ONFH osteonecrosis of femoral head, BMD bone mineral density, BMI body mass index
p < 0.05
Fig. 2SEM results (× 5.0K) shows the differences of collagen fibers among the groups. a Collagen fibers in the OA and ONFH group appeared to be thinner, rougher, sparser, and more wizened compared with FNF group, and more fissures were seen on the surface of collagen fibers. The characteristics in ONFH group were more apparent than OA group. b Quantitative results showed the diameter of collagen fibers and gap between collagen fibers among the groups. Data were expressed as mean ± SD; N = 10 specimens/group. Bar = 10 μm. *p < 0.05 versus FNF group (by one-way ANOVA and Dunnett’s post hoc test)
Fig. 3Differences of collagen staining results among the groups. a Immunohistochemistry staining (× 10) of type I collagen with magnifying details showed that the distribution was more uniform in the FNF group and striature result can be seen clearly. The distribution in the OA and ONFH group was less uniform. Striature result can also be seen in the OA group, but can hardly be seen in the ONFH group. Bar = 100 μm. b Masson’s trichrome staining (× 4) showed the blue-stained collagen fibers covered most area of the trabecular bone and striature result can be seen clearly in the FNF group. Positively stained collagen fibers in the OA group were less seen and they were sporadic in the ONFH group. Striature result can be found in the OA group, but can hardly be seen in the ONFH group. c Quantitative results showed the percentage of type I collagen in immunohistochemical staining among the groups. d Quantitative results showed the percentage of collagen fibers in Masson’s trichrome staining among the groups. Data were expressed as mean ± SD; N = 10 specimens/group. Bar = 100 μm. *p < 0.05 versus FNF group, #p < 0.05 versus OA group (by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test)
Fig. 4H&E staining (× 4) of trabecular bone and differences among the groups. a Trabecular bone in the FNF group appeared to be thicker and more integrated, the arrangement was more regular. However, trabecular bone in the OA group appeared to be slightly thinner and rupture of trabecular bone can be seen but was not quite common. Arrangement of trabecular bone in the ONFH group appeared to be disorganized and rupture was widespread. b Quantitative results showed the percentage of trabecular bone in H&E staining among the groups. Data were expressed as mean ± SD; N = 10 specimens/group. Bar = 100 μm. *p < 0.05 versus FNF group, #p < 0.05 versus OA group (by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test)
Fig. 5Gross morphology of subchondral bone and cartilage of the groups. Subchondral bone in the FNF group appeared to be compact and integrated. Destruction of trabecular bone was seen in the OA group, but the structure of trabecular bone arrangement was still reserved. In the ONFH group, the destruction of subchondral bone was severest, and the arrangement of trabecular bone appeared to be structureless. Cartilage in the FNF group was thicker, while it was thinner in the OA group with part of region destroyed. Cartilage in the ONFH group was thinnest and the damage was severest. Bar = 5 mm