Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The functional muscle–bone unit in subjects of varying BMD

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

This study used the “functional muscle–bone unit” concept to investigate muscle–bone interaction of the lumbar spine in subjects of varying bone mineral density. It was found that unit bone mass corresponded to a relatively more muscle mass in subjects with reduced bone mineral density, indicating a relatively higher mechanical load from muscles exerted on trabecular bone.

Introduction

Bone is an architecturally adaptive tissue which responds to mechanical loading. This study is proposed to use “functional muscle–bone unit” to reflect this muscle–bone interaction at spine in subjects with different bone mineral density.

Methods

The study was carried out in young normal subjects (21 females; age, 29 ± 3) and elderly subjects (155 females; age, 73 ± 3.9) with varying bone mineral density. Cross-sectional area of paravertebral muscle groups was measured in MR images to indicate the muscle mass, while the bone mineral content by dual X-ray absorptiometry was used to represent the bone mass. The functional muscle–bone unit was calculated as the ratio between the bone mass to muscle mass.

Results

It showed that with aging, the muscle mass decreased with the bone mass losing. However, more pronounced reduction was found in bone mass than in muscle mass in the subjects with lower bone mineral density.

Conclusions

Muscle–bone interaction was changed in elderly, especially in those with osteoporosis. Unit bone mass corresponded to a higher muscle mass in subjects with reduced bone mineral density than those normal subjects. This may be contributory to the occurrence of nontraumatic vertebral fractures in elderly subjects with reduced bone mineral density.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frost HM (1997) Defining osteopenias and osteoporoses: another view (with insights from a new paradigm). Bone 20:385–391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferretti JL, Cointry GR, Capozza RF, Frost HM (2003) Bone mass, bone strength, muscle–bone interactions, osteopenias and osteoporoses. Mech Ageing Dev 124:269–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schoenau E, Neu CM, Beck B, Manz F, Rauch F (2002) Bone mineral content per muscle cross-sectional area as an index of the functional muscle-bone unit. J Bone Miner Res 17:1095–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schoenau E (2005) From mechanostat theory to development of the "Functional Muscle-Bone-Unit". J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 5:232–238

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fricke O, Schoenau E (2007) The ‘Functional Muscle-Bone Unit’: probing the relevance of signals for bone development in children and adolescents. Growth Hormone & IGF Research 17:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. (1993) Consensus Development Conference: diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 94:646–650

  7. Kanis JA (2002) Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk. Lancet 359:1929–1936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnell O, Kanis JA, Oden A, Johansson H, De Laet C, Delmas P, Eisman JA, Fujiwara S, Kroger H, Mellstrom D, Meunier PJ, Melton L Jr, O’Neill T, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2007) Predictive value of BMD for hip and other fractures. J Bone Miner Res 20:1185–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bergstrom U, Bjornstig U, Stenlund H, Jonsson H, Svensson O (2008) Fracture mechanisms and fracture pattern in men and women aged 50 years and older: a study of a 12-year population-based injury register, Umea, Sweden. Osteoporos Int 9:1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Riggs BL, Wahner HW, Seeman E, Offord KP, Dunn WL, Mazess RB, Johnson KA, Melton LJ 3rd (1982) Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal femur and spine with aging. Differences between the postmenopausal and senile osteoporosis syndromes. J Clin Invest 70:716–723

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weiss A, Arbell I, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, Silbermann M (1991) Structural changes in aging bone: osteopenia in the proximal femurs of female mice. Bone 12:165–172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Seeman E (2003) Pathogenesis of osteoporosis. J Appl Physiol 95:2142–2151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Be’ery-Lipperman M, Gefen A (2005) Contribution of muscular weakness to osteoporosis: computational and animal models. Clin Biomech 20:984–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lanyon LE (1993) Osteocytes, strain detection, bone modeling and remodeling. Calcif Tissue Int 53:S102–S106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Frost HM, Ferretti JL, Jee WS (1998) Perspectives: some roles of mechanical usage, muscle strength, and the mechanostat in skeletal physiology, disease, and research. Calcif Tissue Int 62:1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferretti JL, Capozza RF, Cointry GR, Garcia SL, Plotkin H, Alvarez Filgueira ML, Zanchetta JR (1998) Gender-related differences in the relationship between densitometric values of whole-body bone mineral content and lean body mass in humans between 2 and 87 years of age. Bone 22:683–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo ZP, Zhang L, Turner RT, An K-N (2000) Effects of mechanical stress/strain and estrogen on cancellous bone structure predicted by fuzzy decision. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 47:344–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ferretti JL, Capozza RF, Cointry GR, Capiglioni R, Roldan EJ, Zanchetta JR (2000) Densitometric and tomographic analyses of musculoskeletal interactions in humans. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 1:31–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seeman E, Delmas PD (2006) Bone quality—the material and structural basis of bone strength and fragility. N Engl J Med 354:2250–2261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frost H (1987) Bone "mass" and the "mechanostat": a proposal. Anat Rec 219(1):1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marotti G (2000) The osteocyte as a wiring transmission system. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 1:133–136

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Turner CH, Forwood MR, Rho JY, Yoshikawa T (1994) Mechanical loading thresholds for lamellar and woven bone formation. J Bone Miner Res 9:87–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Riddle RC, Donahue HJ (2009) From streaming-potentials to shear stress: 25 years of bone cell mechanotransduction. J Orthop Res 27:143–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lang T, LeBlanc A, Evans H, Lu Y, Genant H, Yu A (2004) Cortical and trabecular bone mineral loss from the spine and hip in long-duration spaceflight. J Bone Miner Res 19:1006–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Frost HM (1990) Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU): 1. Redefining Wolff’s law: the bone modeling problem. Anat Rec 226:403–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Frost HM (1990) Structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU). 2. Redefining Wolff’s Law: the bone remodeling problem. Anat Rec 226:414–422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Reeve J, Walton J, Russell LJ, Lunt M, Wolman R, Abraham R, Justice J, Nicholls A, Wardley-Smith B, Green JR, Mitchell A (1999) Determinants of the first decade of bone loss after menopause at spine, hip and radius. QJM 92:261–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lang TF (2011) The bone–muscle relationship in men and women. J Osteoporos 2011:702735

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee KC, Lanyon LE (2004) Mechanical loading influences bone mass through estrogen receptor alpha. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 32:64–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Khoo BC, Brown K, Cann C, Zhu K, Henzell S, Low V, Gustafsson S, Price RI, Prince RL (2009) Comparison of QCT-derived and DXA-derived areal bone mineral density and T scores. Osteoporos Int 20:1539–1545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Li N, Li XM, Xu L, Sun WJ, Cheng XG, Tian W (2013) Comparison of QCT and DXA: osteoporosis detection rates in postmenopausal women. Int J Endocrinol 2013:895474

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81000647), Basic Research Foundation (Outstanding Young Investigator Track) of Shenzhen (JC201005260124A), High-end Talent Oversea Returnees Foundation of Shenzhen (KQC201109020052A), and Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. 465111).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronic and Information Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School, Rm 205C, C Building, HIT Campus, University Town, Xili, Nanshan, Shenzhen, China, 518055

    H. T. Ma

  2. Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    J. F. Griffith

  3. Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, Public Health School, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    P. C. Leung

  4. Radiology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China

    L. Xu

Authors
  1. H. T. Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. F. Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. C. Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. T. Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ma, H.T., Griffith, J.F., Xu, L. et al. The functional muscle–bone unit in subjects of varying BMD. Osteoporos Int 25, 999–1004 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2482-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-013-2482-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation