Tibial geometry is associated with failure load ex vivo: a MRI, pQCT and DXA study
- 232 Downloads
We studied the relations between bone geometry and density and the mechanical properties of human cadaveric tibiae. Bone geometry, assessed by MRI and pQCT, and bone density, assessed by DXA, were significantly associated with bone’s mechanical properties. However, cortical density assessed by pQCT was not associated with mechanical properties.
The primary objective of this study was to determine the contribution of cross-sectional geometry (by MRI and pQCT) and density (by pQCT and DXA) to mechanical properties of the human cadaveric tibia.
We assessed 20 human cadaveric tibiae. Bone cross-sectional geometry variables (total area, cortical area, and section modulus) were measured with MRI and pQCT. Cortical density and areal BMD were measured with pQCT and DXA, respectively. The specimens were tested to failure in a four-point bending apparatus. Coefficients of determination between imaging variables of interest and mechanical properties were determined.
Cross-sectional geometry measurements from MRI and pQCT were strongly correlated with bone mechanical properties (r2 range from 0.55 to 0.85). Bone cross-sectional geometry measured by MRI explained a proportion of variance in mechanical properties similar to that explained by pQCT bone cross-sectional geometry measurements and DXA measurements.
We found that there was a close association between geometry and mechanical properties regardless of the imaging modality (MRI or pQCT) used.
KeywordsBone strength Fracture Magnetic resonance imaging Peripheral quantitative computed tomography Tibia diaphysis
We thank Sylvia Renneberg and Jennifer McCord for conducting the MRI measurements. We also thank Dr. David ML Cooper for his review of the manuscript. Financial support to conduct the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research to whom we are grateful.
- 1.Hudelmaier M, Kuhn V, Lochmüller EM, Well H, Priemel M, Link TM, Eckstein F (2004) Can geometry-based parameters from pQCT and material parameters from quantitative ultrasound (QUS) improve the prediction of radial bone strength over that by bone mass (DXA)? Osteoporos Int 15:375–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Lochmüller EM, Zeller JB, Kaiser D, Eckstein F, Landgraf J, Putz R, Steldinger R (1998) Correlation of femoral and lumbar DXA and calcaneal ultrasound, measured in situ with intact soft tissues, with the in vitro failure loads of the proximal femur. Osteoporos Int 8:591–598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Woodhead HJ, Kemp AF, Blimkie CJR, Briody JN, Duncan CS, Thompson M, Lam A, Howman-Giles R, Cowell CT (2001) Measurement of midfemoral shaft geometry: repeatability and accuracy using magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 16:2251–2259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Manske SL, Kontulainen S, Liu D, McKay HA (Submitted) Are MRI-derived measures of cortical bone geometry reliable and accurate?: Comparison with bone histomorphometry in the human distal tibiaGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kontulainen S, Liu D, Manske SL, Jamieson M, Sievanen H, McKay HA (2007) Analysing cortical bone cross-sectional geometry by peripheral QCT: Comparison with bone histomorphometry. J Clin Densitom (in press)Google Scholar
- 23.Hologic (1996) Hologic Model QDR-4500 Users guide. MA, WalthamGoogle Scholar
- 24.American Society for Testing and Materials (1989) Standard test methods for flexural properties of un-reinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materialsGoogle Scholar
- 27.An YH, Draughn RA (1999) Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar