Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 113–118 | Cite as

Age-related differences in cross-sectional geometry of the forearm bones in healthy women

  • M. L. Bouxsein
  • K. H. Myburgh
  • M. C. H. van der Meulen
  • E. Lindenberger
  • R. Marcus
Clinical Investigations


Men exhibit age-related adaptive changes in long bone geometry, namely, endosteal resorption and periosteal apposition of bone, that help to preserve bone strength. It is not clear whether women undergo similar adaptive responses. To address this question, we assessed the bone mineral density and cross-sectional geometry of the radius and ulna at the one-third distal site by single photon absorptiometry and computed tomography (CT) in healthy young (n=21, age 20–30 years) and older (n=22, age 63–84 years) women. We used the CT data to compute the total subperiosteal, medullary, and cortical areas, as well as the maximum, minimum, and polar moments of inertia. We normalized the geometric parameters for bone length and performed comparisons using both the original and size-corrected data. Radial and ulnar bone mineral content and density were 20–30% lower in the older women (P<0.0001). Ulnar width, total area, medullary area, and maximum and polar moment of inertia were greater in the older than in the younger women. Although we observed similar trends when we examined the radius data that were corrected for bone size, age-related differences in radial geometry were less pronounced and were not significant. We conclude that women undergo endosteal resorption and periosteal apposition of the ulna with age, thereby exhibiting an adaptive pattern that helps to preserve bone strength. The different behavior of these two bones suggests that local, rather than systemic, factors underlie this adaptation.

Key words

Ulna Radius Cross-sectional geometry Bone mineral density Aging 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Melton LJ III, Eddy DM, Johnston CC (1990) Screening for osteoporosis. Ann Int Med 112:516–528Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kanis J, Pitt F (1992) Epidemiology of osteoporosis. Bone 13:S7-S15Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Owen RA, Melton LJ III, Johnson KA, Ilstrip DM, Riggs BL (1982) Incidence of Colles' fracture in a North American community. Am J Public Health 72:605–607Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Dann WL, Mazess RB, Offord KP (1981) Differential changes in bone mineral density of the appendicular and axial skeleton with aging. J Clin Invest 67:328–335Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sowers M, Clark K, Wallace R, Jannausch M, Lemke J (1991) Prospective study of radial bone mineral density in a geographically defined population of postmenopausal Caucasian women. Calcif Tissue Int 48:232–239Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aloia JF, Vaswani A, Ellis K, Yuen K, Cohn SH (1985) A model for involutional bone loss. J Lab Clin Med 106:630–637Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis JW, Ross PD, Wasnich RD, Maclean CJ, Vogel JM (1989) Comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal measurements of age-related changes in bone mineral content. J Bone Miner Res 4:351–357Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hui SL, Wiske PS, Norton JA, Johnston CC (1982) A prospective study of change in bone mass with age in postmenopausal women. J Chron Dis 35:715–725Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Melton LJ III, Richelson LS, Judd HL, Offord KP (1986) Rates of bone loss in the appendicular and axial skeletons of women. J Clin Invest 77:1487–1491Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruegsegger P, Dambacher MA, Reugsegger E, Fischer JA, Anliker M (1984) Bone loss in premenopausal women. J Bone Jt Surg 66-A:1015–1023Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nilsson BE, Westlin NE (1974) The bone mineral content in the forearm of women with Colles' fracture. Acta Orthop Scand 45:836–844Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horowitz M, Wishart JM, Bochner M, Need AG, Chatterton BE, Nordin BEC (1988) Mineral density of bone in the forearm in premenopausal women with fractured wrists. Br Med J 297: 1314–1315Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eastell R, Wahner H, O'Fallon WM, Amadio PC, Melton LJ III, Riggs BL (1989) Unequal decrease in bone density of lumbar spine and ultradistal radius in Colles' and vertebral fracture syndromes. J Clin Invest 83:168–174Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eastell R, Riggs B, Wahner H, O'Fallon W, Amadio P, Melton L III (1989) Colles' fracture and bone density of the ultradistal radius. J Bone Miner Res 4:607–613Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Härmä M, Karjalainen P (1986) Trabecular osteopenia in Colles' fracture. Acta Orthop Scand 57:38–40Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lester GE, Anderson JJB, Tylavsky FA, Sutton WR, Stinnet SS, DeMasi RA, Talmage RV (1990) Update on the use of distal radial bone density measurements in prediction of hip and Colles' fracture risk. J Orthop Res 8:220–226Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seeley D, Browner W, Nevitt M, Genant H, Scott J, Cummings S (1991) Which fractures are associated with low appendicular bone mass in elderly women? Ann Int Med 115:837–842Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wasnich RD, Ross PD, Heilbrun LK, Vogel JM (1987) Selection of the optimal skeletal site for fracture risk prediction. Clin Orthop Rel Res 216:262–269Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Myers ER, Sebeny EA, Hecker AT, Corcoran TA, Hipp JA, Greenspan SL, Hayes WC (1991) Correlations between photon absorption properties and failure load of the distal radius in vitro. Calcif Tissue Int 49:292–297Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith R, Walker R (1964) Femoral expansion in aging women: implications for osteoporosis and fractures. Science 145:156–157Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlson DS, Armelagos GJ, van Gerven DP (1976) Patterns of age-related cortical bone loss (osteoporosis) within the femoral diaphysis. Hum Biol 48:295–314Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin R, Atkinson P (1977) Age- and sex-related changes in the structure and strength of the human femoral shaft. J Biomechanics 10:223–231Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martin RB, Pickett JC, Zinaich S (1980) Studies of skeletal remodeling in aging men. Clin Orthop Res 149:268–282Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruff C, Hayes W (1982) Subperiosteal expansion and cortical remodeling of the human femur and tibia with aging. Science 217:945–947Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruff C, Hayes W (1988) Sex differences in age-related remodeling of the femur and tibia. J Orthop Res 6:886–896Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruff CB, Hayes WC (1983) Cross-sectional geometry of Pecos Pueblo femora and tibiae—a biomechanical investigation: II. Sex, age, and side differences. Am J Phys Anthropol 60:383–400Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garn S, Rohmann C, Wagner B, Ascoli W (1967) Continuing bone growth throughout life: a general phenomenon. Am J Phys Anthropol 26:313–318Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meema H (1963) Cortical bone atrophy and osteoporosis as a manifestation of aging. Am J Roentgenol, Radium Ther, Nucl Med 89:1287–1295Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burr D, Martin R (1983) The effects of composition, structure and age on the torsional properties of the human radius. J Biomech 16:603–608Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Garn S, Frosancho A, Sandusky S, McCann M (1972) Confirmation of the sex difference in continuing subperiosteal apposition. Am J Phys Anthropol 36:377–380Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ruff C, Hayes W (1983) Cross-sectional geometry of Pecos Pueblo femora and tibiae—a biomechanical investigation: I. Method and general patterns of variation. Am J Phys Anthropol 60:359–381Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Katzman D, Bachrach L, Carter D, Marcus R (1991) Clinical and anthropometric correlates of bone mineral acquisition in healthy adolescent girls. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 73:1332–1339Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carter DR, Bouxsein ML, Marcus R (1992) New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry. J Bone Miner Res 7:137–145Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ruff CB, Trinkaus E, Walker A, Larsen CS (in press) Postcranial robusticity in Homo: I. Temporal trends and mechanical interpretation. Am J Phys AnthropolGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nagurka ML, Hayes WC (1980) An interactive graphics package for calculating cross-sectional properties of complex shapes. J Biomech 13:59–64Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruff C (1984) Allometry between length and cross-sectional dimensions of the femur and tibia in Homo sapines. Am J Phys Anthropol 65:347–358Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sumner D, Olson C, Freeman P, Lobick J, Andriacchi T (1989) Computed tomographic measurement of cortical bone geometry. J Biomech 22:649–653Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Horsman A, Leach A (1974) The estimation of the crosssectional area of the ulna and radius. Am J Phys Anthropol 40:173–186Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martin RB, Burr DB (1984) Non-invasive measurement of long bone cross-sectional moment of inertia by photon absorptiometry. J Biomech 17:195–201Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van der Meulen MCH, Beaupré GS, Carter DR (in press) Mechanobiologic influences in long bone cross-sectional growth. BoneGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carter DR, Hayes WC (1977) The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Jt Surg 59-A:954–962Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Bouxsein
    • 3
  • K. H. Myburgh
    • 4
  • M. C. H. van der Meulen
    • 3
  • E. Lindenberger
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Marcus
    • 4
  1. 1.Musculoskeletal Research Laboratory, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical CenterVeterans Affairs Medical CenterPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.Rehabilitation Research & Development CenterVeterans Affairs Medical CenterPalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations