Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Region-Specific Sex-Dependent Pattern of Age-Related Changes of Proximal Femoral Cancellous Bone and Its Implications on Differential Bone Fragility

  • Published:
Calcified Tissue International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite evident interest in age-related bone changes, data on regional differences within the proximal femur are scarce. To date, there has been no comprehensive study on site-specific age-related changes in the trabecular architecture of three biomechanically important femoral subregions (medial neck, lateral neck, and intertrochanteric region) for both genders. In this study we investigated age-related deterioration in the trabecular architecture of those three subregions of the femoral neck for both genders. The research sample included 52 proximal femora (26 males, 26 females; age range, 26–96 years) from Forensic Department at University of Belgrade. Bone sections from the three regions of interest were scanned by micro-CT at University of Hamburg. The study revealed that proximal femoral microarchitecture cannot be perceived as homogeneous and, more importantly, that the aging process is not uniform. Besides the initial intersite differences, microarchitecture changed differently with increasing age, maintaining significant differences between the regions. In addition, we observed a different aging pattern between genders: deterioration was most significant in the intertrochanteric region in women, while the lateral neck was most affected in men. This finding supports epidemiological data about the differential occurrence of cervical vs. trochanteric fractures in aging males and females. In conclusion, the aging process in the proximal femur cannot be regarded as a simple function of quantitative bone loss but, rather, as an alteration of specific architecture that may degrade bone strength.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martens M, Van Audekercke R, Delport P, De Meester P, Mulier JC (1983) The mechanical characteristics of cancellous bone at the upper femoral region. J Biomech 16:971–983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Werner C, Iversen BF, Therkildsen MH (1988) Contribution of the trabecular component to mechanical strength and bone mineral content of the femoral neck. An experimental study on cadaver bones. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 48:457–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Delaere O, Dhem A, Bourgois R (1989) Cancellous bone and mechanical strength of the femoral neck. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 10:72–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Passi N, Gefen A (2005) Trabecular bone contributes to strength of the proximal femur under mediolateral impact in the avian. J Biomech Eng 127:198–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reich T, Gefen A (2006) Effect of trabecular bone loss on cortical strain rate during impact in an in vitro model of avian femur. BioMed Eng OnLine 5:45–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Verhulp E, van Rietbergen B, Huiskes R (2008) Load distribution in the healthy and osteoporotic human proximal femur during a fall to the side. Bone 42:30–35

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Singh M, Nagrath AR, Maini PS (1970) Changes in trabecular pattern of the upper end of the femur as an index of osteoporosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52(3):457–467

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lundeen GA, Vajda EG, Bloebaum RD (2000) Age-related cancellous bone loss in the proximal femur of Caucasian females. Osteoporos Int 11:505–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawashima T, Uhthoff HK (1991) Pattern of bone loss of the proximal femur: a radiologic, densitometric, and histomorphometric study. J Orthop Res 9:634–640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lai YM, Qin L, Yeung HY, Lee KKH, Chan KM (2005) Regional differences in trabecular BMD and micro-architecture of weight-bearing bone under habitual gait loading—a pQCT and microCT study in human cadavers. Bone 37:274–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meta M, Lu Y, Keyak JH, Lang T (2006) Young-elderly differences in bone density, geometry and strength indices depend on proximal femur sub-region: a cross sectional study in Caucasian-American women. Bone 39(1):152–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nazarian A, Muller J, Zurakowski D, Müller R, Snyder BD (2007) Densitometric, morphometric and mechanical distributions in the human proximal femur. J Biomech 40:2573–2579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cui WQ, Won YY, Baek MH, Lee DH, Chung YS, Hur JH, Ma YZ (2008) Age-and region-dependent changes in three-dimensional microstructural properties of proximal femoral trabeculae. Osteoporos Int 19:1579–1587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lochmüller EM, Matsuura M, Bauer J, Hitzl W, Link TM, Müller R, Eckstein F (2008) Site-specific deterioration of trabecular bone architecture in men and women with advancing age. J Bone Miner Res 23(12):1964–1973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Li W, Kornak J, Harris T, Keyak J, Li C, Lu Y, Cheng X, Lang T (2009) Identify fracture-critical regions inside the proximal femur using statistical parametric mapping. Bone 44(4):596–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Issever AS, Vieth V, Lotter A, Meier N, Laib A, Newitt D, Majumdar S, Link TM (2002) Local differences in the trabecular bone structure of the proximal femur depicted with high-spatial resolution MR imaging and multisection CT. Acad Radiol 9:1395–1406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Da Paz LHBC, De Falco V, Teng NC, Dos Reis LM, Pereira RMR, Jorgetti V (2001) Effect of 17ß-estradiol or alendronate on the bone densitometry, bone histomorphometry and bone metabolism of ovariectomized rats. Braz J Med Biol Res 34(8):1015–1022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Domrongkitchaiporn S, Sirikulchayanonta V, Angchaisuksiri P, Stitchantrakul W, Kanokkantapong C, Rajatanavin R (2003) Abnormalities in bone mineral density and bone histology in thalassemia. J Bone Miner Res 18(9):1682–1688

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mellibovsky L, Mariñoso ML, Cervantes F, Besses C, Nacher M, Nogués X, Florensa L, Munné A, Diez-Perez A, Serrano S (2004) Relationship among densitometry, bone histomorphometry, and histologic stage in idiopathic myelofibrosis. Bone 34(2):330–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsangari H, Findlay D, Fazzalari N (2007) Structural and remodeling indices in the cancellous bone of the proximal femur across adulthood. Bone 40:211–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baudoin C, Fardellone P, Sebert JL (1993) Effect of sex and age on the ratio of cervical to trochanteric hip fracture. A meta-analysis of 16 reports on 36,451 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 64(6):647–653

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M (1996) Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone 18(Suppl 1):57S–63S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Memon A, Pospula WM, Tantawy AY, Abdul-Ghafar S, Suresh A, Al-Rowaih A (1998) Incidence of hip fracture in Kuwait. Int J Epidemiol 27:860–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Löfman O, Berglund K, Larsson L, Toss G (2002) Changes in hip fracture epidemiology: redistribution between ages, genders and fracture types. Osteoporosis Int 13(1):18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morosano M, Masoni A, Sánchez A (2005) Incidence of hip fractures in the city of Rosario, Argentina. Osteoporos Int 16(11):1339–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lönnroos E, Kautiainen H, Karppi P, Huusko T, Hartikainen S, Kiviranta I, Sulkava R (2006) Increased incidence of hip fractures. A population based-study in Finland. Bone 39:623–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Truong LH, Kuliwaba JS, Tsangari H, Fazzalari NL (2006) Differential gene expression of bone anabolic factors and trabecular bone architectural changes in the proximal femoral shaft of primary hip osteoarthritis patients. Arth Res Ther 8(6):R188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Thomsen JS, Ebbesen EN, Mosekilde L (2000) A new method of comprehensive static histomorphometry applied on human lumbar vertebral cancellous bone. Bone 27:129–138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ciarelli TE, Fyhrie DP, Schaffler MB, Goldstein SA (2000) Variations in three-dimensional cancellous bone architecture of the proximal femur in female hip fractures and in controls. J Bone Miner Res 15:32–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Legrand E, Chappard D, Pascaretti C, Duquenne M, Krebs S, Rohmer V, Basle MF, Audran M (2000) Trabecular bone microarchitecture, bone mineral density, and vertebral fractures in male osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 15:13–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gibson LJ (1985) The mechanical behaviour of cancellous bone. J Biomech 18:317–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ding M, Odgaard A, Danielsen CC, Hvid I (2002) Mutual associations among microstructural, physical and mechanical properties of human cancellous bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84-B(6):900–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Whitehouse WJ, Dyson ED (1974) Scanning electron microscope studies of trabecular bone in the proximal end of the human femur. J Anat 118(Pt 3):417–444

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lotz JC, Cheal EJ, Hayes WC (1995) Stress distributions within the proximal femur during gait and falls: implications for osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporosis Int 5:252–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rudman KE, Aspden RM, Meakin JR (2006) Compression or tension? The stress distribution in the proximal femur. BioMed Eng OnLine 5:12–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roux W (1881) Der zuchtende Kampf der Teile, oder die “Teilau- slese” im Organismus (Theorie der “funktionellen Anpassung”). Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wolff J (1892) Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen [The law of bone remodelling]. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hert J (1994) A new attempt at the interpretation of the functional architecture of the cancellous bone. J Biomech 27(2):239–242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Skedros JG, Baucom SL (2007) Mathematical analysis of trabecular ‘trajectories’ in apparent trajectorial structures: the unfortunate historical emphasis on the human proximal femur. J Theor Biol 244:15–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lovejoy CO (2005) The natural history of human gait and posture. Part 2. Hip and thigh. Gait Posture 21(1):113–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pauwels F (1980) Biomechanics of the locomotor apparatus. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kalmey JK, Lovejoy CO (2002) Collagen fiber orientation in the femoral necks of apes and humans: do their histological structures reflect differences in locomotor loading? Bone 31(2):327–332

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Westerlind KC, Wronski TJ, Ritman EL, Luo ZP, An KN, Bell NH, Turner RT (1997) Estrogen regulates the rate of bone turnover but bone balance in ovariectomized rats is modulated by prevailing mechanical strain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:4199–4204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mayhew PM, Thomas CD, Clement JG, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Bonfield W, Burgoyne CJ, Reeve J (2005) Relation between age, femoral neck cortical stability, and hip fracture risk. Lancet 366:129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fox JC, Keaveny TM (2001) Trabecular eccentricity and bone adaptation. J Theor Biol 212:211–221

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Judex S, Garman R, Squire M, Donahue LR, Rubin C (2004) Genetically based influences on the site-specific regulation of trabecular and cortical bone morphology. J Bone Miner Res 19:600–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang L, Cheng A, Bai Z, Lu Y, Endo N, Dohmae Y, Takahashi HE (2000) Epidemiology of cervical and trochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in 1994 in Tangshan, China. J Bone Miner Metab 18(2):84–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. El Maghraoui A, Koumba BA, Jroundi I, Achemlal L, Bezza A, Tazi MA (2005) Epidemiology of hip fractures in 2002 in Rabat, Morocco. Osteoporos Int 16(6):597–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lesić A, Jarebinski M, Pekmezović T, Bumbasirević M, Spasovski D, Atkinson HD (2007) Epidemiology of hip fractures in Belgrade, Serbia Montenegro, 1990–2000. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 127(3):179–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hedlund R, Ahlbom A, Lindgren U (1986) Hip fracture incidence in Stockholm 1972–1981. Acta Orthopaed 57:30–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ito M, Nishida A, Koga A, Ikeda S, Shiraishi A, Uetani M, Hayashi K, Nakamura T (2002) Contribution of trabecular and cortical components to the mechanical properties of bone and their regulating parameters. Bone 31(3):351–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Holzer G, Von Skrbensky G, Holzer LA, Pichl W (2009) Hip fractures and the contribution of cortical versus trabecular bone to femoral neck strength. J Bone Miner Res 24:468–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Manske SL, Liu-Ambrose T, Cooper DML, Kontulainen S, Guy P, Forster BB, McKay HA (2009) Cortical and trabecular bone in the femoral neck both contribute to proximal femur failure load prediction. Osteoporos Int 20:445–453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Yates LB, Karasik D, Beck TJ, Cupples LA, Kiel DP (2007) Hip structural geometry in old and old-old age: similarities and differences between men and women. Bone 41(4):722–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Looker AC, Beck TJ, Orwoll ES (2001) Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry? J Bone Miner Res 16(7):1291–1299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Ministry of Science of Republic of Serbia Grant No. 145012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Anthropology, Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 4/2 Dr Subotica, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Marija Djuric, Danijela Djonic & Petar Milovanovic

  2. Institute for Forensic Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 31a Deligradska, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Slobodan Nikolic

  3. Center for Biomechanics & Skeletal Biology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 59 Lottestr, 22529, Hamburg, Germany

    Robert Marshall & Michael Hahn

  4. Institute for Medical Statistics and Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 15 Dr Subotica, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

    Jelena Marinkovic

Authors
  1. Marija Djuric
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danijela Djonic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Petar Milovanovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Slobodan Nikolic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jelena Marinkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marija Djuric.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Djuric, M., Djonic, D., Milovanovic, P. et al. Region-Specific Sex-Dependent Pattern of Age-Related Changes of Proximal Femoral Cancellous Bone and Its Implications on Differential Bone Fragility. Calcif Tissue Int 86, 192–201 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-009-9325-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-009-9325-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation