Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histomorphometry and cortical robusticity of the adult human femur

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent quantitative analyses of human bone microanatomy, as well as theoretical models that propose bone microstructure and gross anatomical associations, have started to reveal insights into biological links that may facilitate remodeling processes. However, relationships between bone size and the underlying cortical bone histology remain largely unexplored. The goal of this study is to determine the extent to which static indicators of bone remodeling and vascularity, measured using histomorphometric techniques, relate to femoral midshaft cortical width and robusticity. Using previously published and new quantitative data from 450 adult human male (n = 233) and female (n = 217) femora, we determine if these aspects of femoral size relate to bone microanatomy. Scaling relationships are explored and interpreted within the context of tissue form and function. Analyses revealed that the area and diameter of Haversian canals and secondary osteons, and densities of secondary osteons and osteocyte lacunae from the sub-periosteal region of the posterior midshaft femur cortex were significantly, but not consistently, associated with femoral size. Cortical width and bone robusticity were correlated with osteocyte lacunae density and scaled with positive allometry. Diameter and area of osteons and Haversian canals decreased as the width of cortex and bone robusticity increased, revealing a negative allometric relationship. These results indicate that microscopic products of cortical bone remodeling and vascularity are linked to femur size. Allometric relationships between more robust human femora with thicker cortical bone and histological products of bone remodeling correspond with principles of bone functional adaptation. Future studies may benefit from exploring scaling relationships between bone histomorphometric data and measurements of bone macrostructure.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the sake of clarity, and to ensure that our study follows standard histomorphometry nomenclature [11], we refer to the cortical distance between the endosteum and periosteum as ‘cortical width’ (defining transverse 2D measurements of diaphyseal cortex) rather than ‘cortical thickness’ (implying 3D measurements) [e.g., 24].

  2. See [51,52,53].

Abbreviations

Ct.Wi:

Cortical width

Ct.Wi.RI:

Cortical width robusticity index

N.On:

Intact osteon density

N.On.Fg:

Fragmentary osteon density

OPD:

Osteon population density

On.Ar:

Osteon area

H.Ar:

Haversian canal area

H.Dm:

Haversian canal diameter

Ot.Dn:

Osteocyte lacunae density

RMA:

Reduced major axis regression

References

  1. Cambra-Moo O, Nacarino-Meneses C, Díaz-Güemes I, Enciso S, Gil OG, Rodríguez LL, Angel Rodríguez MÁ, Antonio BH (2015) Multidisciplinary characterization of the long-bone cortex growth patterns through sheep’s ontogeny. J Struct Biol 191:1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Miszkiewicz JJ (2016) Investigating histomorphometric relationships at the human femoral midshaft in a biomechanical context. J Bone Miner Metab 34:179–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Skedros JG, Su SC, Bloebaum RD (1997) Biomechanical implications of mineral content and microstructural variations in cortical bone of horse, elk, and sheep calcanei. Anat Rec 249:297–316

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bourrin S, Ghaemmaghami F, Vico L, Chappard D, Gharib C, Alexandre C (1992) Effect of a five-week swimming program on rat bone: a histomorphometric study. Calcif Tissue Int 51:137–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Britz HM, Thomas CDL, Clement JG, Cooper DML (2009) The relation of femoral osteon geometry to age, sex, height and weight. Bone 45:77–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dempster DW, Cosman F, Kurland ES, Zhou H, Nieves J, Woelfert L, Shane E, Plavetić K, Müller R, Bilezikian J, Lindsay R (2001) Effects of daily treatment with parathyroid hormone on bone microarchitecture and turnover in patients with osteoporosis: a paired biopsy study. J Bone Miner Res 16:1846–1853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schlecht SH, Pinto DC, Agnew AM, Stout SD (2012) Brief communication: the effects of disuse on the mechanical properties of bone: what unloading tells us about the adaptive nature of skeletal tissue. Am J Phys Anthropol 149:599–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Li XJ, Jee WSS, Ke HZ, Mori S, Akamine T (1991) Age-related changes of cancellous and cortical bone histomorphometry in female Sprague-Dawley rats. Cells Mater Suppl 1:25–35

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rauch F, Travers R, Parfitt AM, Glorieux FH (2000) Static and dynamic bone histomorphometry in children with osteogenesis imperfecta. Bone 26:581–589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pitfield R, Miszkiewicz JJ, Mahoney P (2017) Cortical histomorphometry of the human humerus during ontogeny. Calcif Tissue Int 101:148–158

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dempster DW, Compston JE, Drezner MK, Glorieux FH, Kanis JA, Malluche H, Meunier PJ, Ott SM, Recker RR, Parfitt AM (2013) Standardized nomenclature, symbols, and units for bone histomorphometry: a 2012 update of the report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res 28:2–17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chavassieux PM, Arlot ME, Roux JP, Portero N, Daifotis A, Yates AJ, Hamdy NAT, Malice M, Freedholm D, Meunier PJ (2000) Effects of alendronate on bone quality and remodeling in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a histomorphometric analysis of transiliac biopsies. J Bone Miner Res 15:754–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Athanasiou KA, Zhu CF, Lanctot DR, Agrawal CM, Wang X (2000) Fundamentals of biomechanics in tissue engineering of bone. Tissue Eng 6:361–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frost HM (1987) Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: a proposal. Anat Rec 219:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Robling AG, Castillo AB, Turner CH (2006) Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 8:455–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lanyon LE, Goodship AE, Pye CJ, MacFie JH (1982) Mechanically adaptive bone remodeling. J Biomech 15:141–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 44:930–935

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Stock JT, Shaw CN (2007) Which measures of diaphyseal robusticity are robust? A comparison of external methods of quantifying the strength of long bone diaphyses to cross-sectional geometric properties. Am J Phys Anthropol 134:412–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stout S, Crowder C (2011) Bone remodeling, histomorphology, and histomorphometry. In: Crowder C, Stout SD (eds) Bone histology: an anthropological perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Bromage TG, Juwayeyi YM, Katris JA, Gomez S, Ovsiy O, Goldstein J, Janal MN, Hu B, Schrenk F (2016) The scaling of human osteocyte lacuna density with body size and metabolism. C R Palevol 15:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Klein-Nulend J, Bakker AD, Bacabac RG, Vatsa A, Weinbaum S (2012) Mechanosensation and transduction in osteocytes. Bone 54:182–190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Oers RFM, Ruimerman R, Van Rietbergen B, Hilbers PAJ, Huiskes R (2008) Relating osteon diameter to strain. Bone 43:476–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Britz HM, Jokihaara J, Leppänen OV, Järvinen TL, Cooper DM (2012) The effects of immobilization on vascular canal orientation in rat cortical bone. J Anat 220:67–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miszkiewicz JJ, Mahoney P (2016) Ancient human bone microstructure in medieval England: comparisons between two socio-economic groups. Anat Rec 299:42–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Skedros JG, Mason MW, Bloebaum RD (1994) Differences in osteonal micromorphology between tensile and compressive cortices of a bending skeletal system: indications of potential strain-specific differences in bone microstructure. Anat Rec 239:405–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wojda SJ, Weyland DR, Gray SK, Mcgee-Lawrence ME, Drummer TD, Donahue SW (2013) Black bears with longer disuse (hibernation) periods have lower femoral osteon population density and greater mineralization and intracortical porosity. Anat Rec 296:1148–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sugawara Y, Kamioka H, Ishihara Y, Fujisawa N, Kawanabe N, Yamashiro T (2013) The early mouse 3D osteocyte network in the presence and absence of mechanical loading. Bone 52:189–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Totland GK, Fjelldal PG, Kryvi H, Løkka G, Wargelius A, Sagstad A, Hansen T, Grotmol S (2011) Sustained swimming increases the mineral content and osteocyte density of salmon vertebral bone. J Anat 219:490–501

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin RB (2002) Is all cortical bone remodeling initiated by microdamage? Bone 30:8–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim YK, Kameo Y, Tanaka S, Adachi T (2017) Capturing microscopic features of bone remodeling into a macroscopic model based on biological rationales of bone adaptation. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 16(5):1697–1708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldman HM, Hampson NA, Guth JJ, Lin D, Jepsen KJ (2014) Intracortical remodeling parameters are associated with measures of bone robustness. Anat Rec 297:1817–1828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jepsen KJ, Bigelow EM, Schlecht SH (2015) Women build long bones with less cortical mass relative to body size and bone size compared with men. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2530–2539

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Tommasini SM, Nasser P, Jepsen KJ (2007) Sexual dimorphism affects tibia size and shape but not tissue-level mechanical properties. Bone 40:498–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schlecht SH, Jepsen KJ (2013) Functional integration of skeletal traits: an intraskeletal assessment of bone size, mineralization, and volume covariance. Bone 56:127–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Arkansas Archaeology Survey, Fayetteville

  36. Miszkiewicz JJ (2014) Ancient human bone histology and behaviour. University of Kent, PhD Thesis

  37. Mahoney P, Miszkiewicz JJ, Chapple S, Le Luyer M, Schlecht SH, Stewart TJ, Griffiths RA, Deter C, Guatelli Steinberg D (2018) The biorhythm of human skeletal growth. J Anat 232(1):26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST-palaeontological statistics, ver. 1.89. Palaeont Electr 4:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  39. Smith RJ (2009) Use and misuse of the reduced major axis for line-fitting. Am J Phys Anthropol 140:476–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Taylor R (1990) Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagn Med Sonogr 6:35–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Breitling LP (2015) Calcium intake and bone mineral density as an example of non-linearity and threshold analysis. Osteoporos Int 26:1271–1281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006) Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev 81:259–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pearson OM, Lieberman DE (2004) The aging of Wolff’s “law”: ontogeny and responses to mechanical loading in cortical bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 125:63–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. LaMothe JM, Hamilton NH, Zernicke RF (2005) Strain rate influences periosteal adaptation in mature bone. Med Eng Phys 27:277–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Thompson DW (1942) On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  46. Barak MM, Lieberman DE, Hublin JJ (2013) Of mice, rats and men: trabecular bone architecture in mammals scales to body mass with negative allometry. J Struct Biol 183:123–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Thompson DD, Galvin CA (1983) Estimation of age at death by tibial osteon remodeling in an autopsy series. Forensic Sci Int 22:203–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nowlan NC, Jepsen KJ, Morgan EF (2011) Smaller, weaker, and less stiff bones evolve from changes in subsistence strategy. Osteoporos Int 22:1967–1980

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yerramshetty JS, Akkus O (2008) The associations between mineral crystallinity and the mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Bone 42:476–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Currey JD (2003) The many adaptations of bone. J Biomech 36:1487–1495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Code of Ethics of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2003) http://physanth.org/documents/3/ethics.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2011

  52. British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology Code of Practice (2010) http://www.babao.org.uk/index/ethics-and-standards. Accessed 24 Jan 2011

  53. Mays S, Elders J, Humphrey L, White W, and Marshall P (2013) Science and the dead: guidelines for the destructive sampling of archaeological human remains for scientific analysis. Advisory panel on the archaeology of burials in England. English Heritage

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the School of Anthropology and Conservation (University of Kent, UK) for research funding (JJM), The Royal Society for equipment funding (PM), Prof Kate Robson Brown (Bristol), Prof Richard Griffiths (Kent), and Prof Dr David Roberts (Kent) for research support, and Prof Stephen Haslett (ANU), Dr Simon Tollington (Kent), Alannah Pearson (ANU), Dr Julien Louys (ANU) for statistical advice. Invaluable feedback from the editor and two reviewers greatly improved our manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Skeletal Biology and Forensic Anthropology Research Group, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Justyna Jolanta Miszkiewicz

  2. Human Osteology Research Laboratory, Skeletal Biology Research Centre, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, UK

    Justyna Jolanta Miszkiewicz & Patrick Mahoney

Authors
  1. Justyna Jolanta Miszkiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Mahoney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justyna Jolanta Miszkiewicz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miszkiewicz, J.J., Mahoney, P. Histomorphometry and cortical robusticity of the adult human femur. J Bone Miner Metab 37, 90–104 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-017-0899-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-017-0899-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation