Calcified Tissue International

, Volume 86, Issue 6, pp 447–454 | Cite as

Direction-Specific Diaphyseal Geometry and Mineral Mass Distribution of Tibia and Fibula: A pQCT Study of Female Athletes Representing Different Exercise Loading Types

  • T. Rantalainen
  • R. Nikander
  • A. Heinonen
  • H. Suominen
  • H. Sievänen


Bones adapt to prevalent loading, which comprises mainly forces caused by muscle contractions. Therefore, we hypothesized that similar associations would be observed between neuromuscular performance and rigidity of bones located in the same body segment. These associations were assessed among 221 premenopausal women representing athletes in high-impact, odd-impact, high-magnitude, repetitive low-impact, and repetitive nonimpact sports and physically active referents aged 17–40 years. The whole group mean age and body mass were 23 (5) and 63 (9) kg, respectively. Bone cross sections at the tibial and fibular mid-diaphysis were assessed with peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT). Density-weighted polar section modulus (SSI) and minimal and maximal cross-sectional moments of inertia (Imin, Imax) were analyzed. Bone morphology was described as the Imax/Imin ratio. Neuromuscular performance was assessed by maximal power during countermovement jump (CMJ). Tibial SSI was 31% higher in the high-impact, 19% in the odd-impact, and 30% in the repetitive low-impact groups compared with the reference group (P < 0.005). Only the high-impact group differed from the referents in fibular SSI (17%, P < 0.005). Tibial morphology differed between groups (P = 0.001), but fibular morphology did not (P = 0.247). The bone-by-group interaction was highly significant (P < 0.001). After controlling for height, weight, and age, the CMJ peak power correlated moderately with tibial SSI (r = 0.31, P < 0.001) but not with fibular SSI (r = 0.069, P = 0.313). In conclusion, observed differences in the association between neuromuscular performance and tibial and fibular traits suggest that the tibia and fibula experience different loading environments despite their anatomical vicinity.


Skeletal adaptation Young adult Bone rigidity Bone geometry Muscle 



This study was financially supported by Competitive Research Funding of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Tampere University Hospital (grant 9K121); the Finnish Ministry of Education; the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation; and the TBGS National Graduate School of Musculoskeletal Disorders and Biomaterials.


  1. 1.
    Lanyon L, Skerry T (2001) Postmenopausal osteoporosis as a failure of bone’s adaptation to functional loading: a hypothesis. J Bone Miner Res 16:1937–1947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moustafa A, Sugiyama T, Saxon LK, Zaman G, Sunters A, Armstrong VJ, Javaheri B, Lanyon LE, Price JS (2009) The mouse fibula as a suitable bone for the study of functional adaptation to mechanical loading. Bone 44:930–935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkins RM, Madhavan P, Sudhakar J, Whitwell D (1999) Ipsilateral vascularised fibular transport for massive defects of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:1035–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McNeil CJ, Raymer GH, Doherty TJ, Marsh GD, Rice CL (2009) Geometry of a weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing bone in the legs of young, old, and very old men. Calcif Tissue Int 85:22–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Whalen RT, Carter DR, Steele CR (1988) Influence of physical activity on the regulation of bone density. J Biomech 21:825–837CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turner CH (1998) Three rules for bone adaptation to mechanical stimuli. Bone 23:399–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner CH, Robling AG (2003) Designing exercise regimens to increase bone strength. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 31:45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frost HM (2003) Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 275:1081–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burr DB, Milgrom C, Fyhrie D, Forwood M, Nyska M, Finestone A, Hoshaw S, Saiag E, Simkin A (1996) In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone 18:405–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore KL, Dalley AF (1999) Clinically oriented anatomy, 4th edn. Williams & Wilkins, LippincottGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nikander R, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Kannus P (2005) Femoral neck structure in adult female athletes subjected to different loading modalities. J Bone Miner Res 20:520–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nikander R, Sievänen H, Uusi-Rasi K, Heinonen A, Kannus P (2006) Loading modalities and bone structures at nonweight-bearing upper extremity and weight-bearing lower extremity: a pQCT study of adult female athletes. Bone 39:886–894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nikander R, Kannus P, Dastidar P, Hannula M, Harrison L, Cervinka T, Narra NG, Aktour R, Arola T, Eskola H, Soimakallio S, Heinonen A, Hyttinen J, Sievanen H (2009) Targeted exercises against hip fragility. Osteoporos Int 20:1321–1328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sievänen H, Koskue V, Rauhio A, Kannus P, Heinonen A, Vuori I (1998) Peripheral quantitative computed tomography in human long bones: evaluation of in vitro and in vivo precision. J Bone Miner Res 13:871–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Runge M, Rittweger J, Russo CR, Schiessl H, Felsenberg D (2004) Is muscle power output a key factor in the age-related decline in physical performance? A comparison of muscle cross section, chair-rising test and jumping power. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 24:335–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rittweger J, Schiessl H, Felsenberg D, Runge M (2004) Reproducibility of the jumping mechanography as a test of mechanical power output in physically competent adult and elderly subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:128–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hibbeler RC (2004) Engineering mechanics: statics and dynamics, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 638, 688sGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soavi R, Girolami M, Loreti I, Bragonzoni L, Monti C, Visani A, Marcacci M (2000) The mobility of the proximal tibio-fibular joint. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis on six cadaver specimens. Foot Ankle Int 21:336–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang Q, Whittle M, Cunningham J, Kenwright J (1996) Fibula and its ligaments in load transmission and ankle joint stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 330:261–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takebe K, Nakagawa A, Minami H, Kanazawa H, Hirohata K (1984) Role of the fibula in weight-bearing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 184:289–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goh JC, Mech AM, Lee EH, Ang EJ, Bayon P, Pho RW (1992) Biomechanical study on the load-bearing characteristics of the fibula and the effects of fibular resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 279:223–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen A, Dahl S (2005) Stress fracture of the distal tibia and fibula through heavy lifting. Am J Ind Med 47:181–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sobczyk K, Mocko K, Sonecki L, Suchy G (2008) Bilateral stress fracture of distal fibula and tibia—case report. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 10:183–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heinonen A, Sievänen H, Kyröläinen H, Perttunen J, Kannus P (2001) Mineral mass, size, and estimated mechanical strength of triple jumpers’ lower limb. Bone 29:279–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ma H, Leskinen T, Alen M, Cheng S, Sipila S, Heinonen A, Kaprio J, Suominen H, Kujala UM (2009) Long-term leisure time physical activity and properties of bone: a twin study. J Bone Miner Res 24:1427–1433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macdonald HM, Cooper DM, McKay HA (2009) Anterior–posterior bending strength at the tibial shaft increases with physical activity in boys: evidence for non-uniform geometric adaptation. Osteoporos Int 20:61–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaw CN, Stock JT (2009) Intensity, repetitiveness, and directionality of habitual adolescent mobility patterns influence the tibial diaphysis morphology of athletes. Am J Phys Anthropol 140:149–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nikander R, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Karstila T, Kannus P (2008) Load-specific differences in the structure of femoral neck and tibia between world-class moguls skiers and slalom skiers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 18:145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sipilä S, Suominen H (1995) Effects of strength and endurance training on thigh and leg muscle mass and composition in elderly women. J Appl Physiol 78:334–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sipilä S, Multanen J, Kallinen M, Era P, Suominen H (1996) Effects of strength and endurance training on isometric muscle strength and walking speed in elderly women. Acta Physiol Scand 156:457–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sipilä S, Elorinne M, Alen M, Suominen H, Kovanen V (1997) Effects of strength and endurance training on muscle fibre characteristics in elderly women. Clin Physiol 17:459–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taaffe DR, Cauley JA, Danielson M, Nevitt MC, Lang TF, Bauer DC, Harris TB (2001) Race and sex effects on the association between muscle strength, soft tissue, and bone mineral density in healthy elders: the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study. J Bone Miner Res 16:1343–1352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heinonen A, Sievänen H, Kannus P, Oja P, Vuori I (1996) Effects of unilateral strength training and detraining on bone mineral mass and estimated mechanical characteristics of the upper limb bones in young women. J Bone Miner Res 11:490–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lochmuller EM, Groll O, Kuhn V, Eckstein F (2002) Mechanical strength of the proximal femur as predicted from geometric and densitometric bone properties at the lower limb versus the distal radius. Bone 30:207–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Groll O, Lochmuller EM, Bachmeier M, Willnecker J, Eckstein F (1999) Precision and intersite correlation of bone densitometry at the radius, tibia and femur with peripheral quantitative CT. Skeletal Radiol 28:696–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kannus P, Haapasalo H, Sankelo M, Sievanen H, Pasanen M, Heinonen A, Oja P, Vuori I (1995) Effect of starting age of physical activity on bone mass in the dominant arm of tennis and squash players. Ann Intern Med 123:27–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Haapasalo H, Kannus P, Sievanen H, Pasanen M, Uusi-Rasi K, Heinonen A, Oja P, Vuori I (1998) Effect of long-term unilateral activity on bone mineral density of female junior tennis players. J Bone Miner Res 13:310–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ducher G, Eser P, Hill B, Bass S (2009) History of amenorrhoea compromises some of the exercise-induced benefits in cortical and trabecular bone in the peripheral and axial skeleton: a study in retired elite gymnasts. Bone 45:760–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hartard M, Kleinmond C, Wiseman M, Weissenbacher ER, Felsenberg D, Erben RG (2007) Detrimental effect of oral contraceptives on parameters of bone mass and geometry in a cohort of 248 young women. Bone 40:444–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Rantalainen
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Nikander
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • A. Heinonen
    • 2
  • H. Suominen
    • 2
  • H. Sievänen
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Biology of Physical ActivityUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of Health SciencesUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Centre for Lifestyle and Preventative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western HospitalUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Bone Research GroupUKK InstituteTampereFinland
  5. 5.Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Science CenterTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations