Abstract
Longitudinal growth of long bones and vertebrae occurs in growth plate cartilage. This process is partly regulated by mechanical forces, which are one of the underlying reasons for progression of growth deformities such as idiopathic adolescent scoliosis and early-onset scoliosis. This concept of mechanical modulation of bone growth is also exploited in the development of fusionless treatments of these deformities. However, the optimal loading condition for the mechanical modulation of growth plate remains to be identified. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of in vitro static versus dynamic modulation and of dynamic loading parameters, such as frequency and amplitude, on the mechanical responses and histomorphology of growth plate explants. Growth plate explants from distal ulnae of 4-week-old swines were extracted and randomly distributed among six experimental groups: baseline (\(n=10\)), control (\(n=10\)), static (\(n=10\)) and dynamic (\(n=3\times 10\)). For static and dynamic groups, mechanical modulation was performed in vitro using an Indexed CartiGen bioreactor. A stress relaxation test combined with confocal microscopy and digital image correlation was used to characterize the mechanical responses of each explant in terms of peak stress, equilibrium stress, equilibrium modulus of elasticity and strain pattern. Histomorphometrical measurements were performed on toluidine blue tissue sections using a semi-automatic custom-developed MATLAB toolbox. Results suggest that compared to dynamic modulation, static modulation changes the strain pattern of the tissue and thus is more detrimental for tissue biomechanics, while the histomorphological parameters are not affected by mechanical modulation. Also, under dynamic modulation, changing the frequency or amplitude does not affect the biomechanical response of the tissue. Results of this study will be useful in finding optimal and non-damaging parameters for the mechanical modulation of growth plate in fusionless treatments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akyuz E, Braun JT, Brown NA, Bachus KN (2006) Static versus dynamic loading in the mechanical modulation of vertebral growth. Spine 31(25):E952–E958
Amini S, Mortazavi F, Sun J, Levesque M, Hoemann CD, Villemure I (2013) Stress relaxation of swine growth plate in semi-confined compression: depth dependent tissue deformational behavior versus extracellular matrix composition and collagen fiber organization. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 12(1):67–78
Armstrong C, Mow V (1982) Variations in the intrinsic mechanical properties of human articular cartilage with age, degeneration, and water content. J Bone Joint Surg 64(1):88–94
Aronsson DD, Stokes IA (2011) Nonfusion treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by growth modulation and remodeling. J Pediatr Orthop 31(1 Suppl):S99
Ballock RT, O’Keefe RJ (2003) Physiology and pathophysiology of the growth plate. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 69(2):123–143
Betz RR, Linda PD, Mulcahey MJ, Ross SC (2005) Vertebral body stapling procedure for the treatment of scoliosis in the growing child. Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:55–60
Braun JT, Hoffman M, Akyuz E, Ogilvie JW, Brodke DS, Bachus KN (2006) Mechanical modulation of vertebral growth in the fusionless treatment of progressive scoliosis in an experimental model. Spine 31(12):1314–1320
Burdan F, Szumiło J, Korobowicz A, Farooquee R, Patel S, Patel A, Dave A, Szumiło M, Solecki M, Klepacz R et al (2009) Morphology and physiology of the epiphyseal growth plate. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 47(1):4–5
Cancel M, Grimard G, Thuillard-Crisinel D, Moldovan F, Villemure I (2009) Effects of in vivo static compressive loading on aggrecan and type II and X collagens in the rat growth plate extracellular matrix. Bone 44(2):306–315
Cheng P, Sutton MA, Schreier HW, McNeill SR (2002) Full-field speckle pattern image correlation with b-spline deformation function. Exp Mech 42(3):344–352
Cohen B, Lai W, Mow V (1998) A transversely isotropic biphasic model for unconfined compression of growth plate and chondroepiphysis. J Biomech Eng 120(4):491–496
Gomez JA, Lee JK, Kim PD, Roye DP, Vitale MG (2011) “Growth friendly” spine surgery: management options for the young child with scoliosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19(12):722–727
Grodzinsky AJ, Levenston ME, Jin M, Frank EH (2010) Cartilage tissue remodeling in response to mechanical forces. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2(1):691–713
Guille JT, D’Andrea LP, Betz RR (2007) Fusionless treatment of scoliosis. Orthop Clin N Am 38(4):541–545
Kaviani R, Londono I, Parent S, Moldovan F, Villemure I (2015) Compressive mechanical modulation alters the viability of growth plate chondrocytes in vitro. J Orthop Res 33(11):1587–1593
Menard AL, Grimard G, Valteau B, Londono I, Moldovan F, Villemure I (2014a) In vivo dynamic loading reduces bone growth without histomorphometric changes of the growth plate. J Orthop Res 32(9):1129–1136
Menard AL, Soulisse C, Raymond P, Villemure I et al (2014b) Effect of cold storage and freezing on the biomechanical properties of swine growth plate explants. J Biomech Eng 136(4):044502
Mwale F, Tchetina E, Wu CW, Poole AR (2002) The assembly and remodeling of the extracellular matrix in the growth plate in relationship to mineral deposition and cellular hypertrophy: an in situ study of collagens II and IX and proteoglycan. J Bone Miner Res 17(2):275–283
Schmid EC, Aubin CE, Moreau A, Sarwark J, Parent S (2008) A novel fusionless vertebral physeal device inducing spinal growth modulation for the correction of spinal deformities. Eur Spine J 17(10):1329–1335
Sergerie K, Lacoursiere MO, Levesque M, Villemure I (2009) Mechanical properties of the porcine growth plate and its three zones from unconfined compression tests. J Biomech 42(4):510–516
Sergerie K, Parent S, Beauchemin PF, Londono I, Moldovan F, Villemure I (2011) Growth plate explants respond differently to in vitro static and dynamic loadings. J Orthop Res 29(4):473–480
Stokes IA, Spence H, Aronsson DD, Kilmer N (1996) Mechanical modulation of vertebral body growth: implications for scoliosis progression. Spine 21(10):1162–1167
Stokes IA, Aronsson DD, Dimock AN, Cortright V, Beck S (2006) Endochondral growth in growth plates of three species at two anatomical locations modulated by mechanical compression and tension. J Orthop Res 24(6):1327–1334
Tirehdast M (2014) Biomechanical response of the epiphyseal vertebral growth plate under static and cyclic compression: a finite element study. Master’s thesis. Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
Valteau B, Grimard G, Londono I, Moldovan F, Villemure I (2011) In vivo dynamic bone growth modulation is less detrimental but as effective as static growth modulation. Bone 49(5):996–1004
Villemure I, Cloutier L, Matyas J, Duncan N (2007) Non-uniform strain distribution within rat cartilaginous growth plate under uniaxial compression. J Biomech 40(1):149–156
Wilsman NJ, Farnum CE, Green EM, Lieferman EM, Clayton MK (1996) Cell cycle analysis of proliferative zone chondrocytes in growth plates elongating at different rates. J Orthop Res 14(4):562–572
Wosu R, Sergerie K, Lévesque M, Villemure I (2012) Mechanical properties of the porcine growth plate vary with developmental stage. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 11(3–4):303–312
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Canada Research Chair in Mechanobiology of the Pediatric Musculoskeletal System (I.V.), the CIHR/MENTOR program, Sainte-Justine UHC Foundation and Foundation of Stars (R.K.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaviani, R., Londono, I., Parent, S. et al. Growth plate cartilage shows different strain patterns in response to static versus dynamic mechanical modulation. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 15, 933–946 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-015-0733-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-015-0733-6