*R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; and †Orthopaedic Mechanobiology Laboratory, Fischell Department of Bioengineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 May;31(5):e137-e142. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000782.
Biomechanical studies of osteoporotic bone have used synthetic models rather than cadaveric samples because of decreased variability, increased availability, and overall ease of the use of synthetic models. We compared the torsional mechanical properties of cadaveric osteoporotic bone with those of currently available synthetic osteoporotic bone analogues.
We tested 12 osteoporotic cadaveric humeri and 6 specimens each of 6 types of synthetic analogues. A 5-mm fracture gap model and posterior plating technique with 4.5-mm narrow 10-hole locking compression plate were used. Torque was applied to a peak of ±10 N·m for 1000 cycles at 0.3 Hz. Data were continuously collected during cyclical and ramped loading with a servohydraulic materials testing system.
Cadaveric bone had a 17% failure rate before completing 1000 cycles. Three osteoporotic bone models had 100% failure (P < 0.05), 2 had 17% failure, and 1 had 0% failure before 1000 cycles. Significant differences in the stiffness of the 3 types of synthetic bone models that survived cyclic loading were noted compared with the cadaveric bone model (P < 0.05). Osteoporotic bone analogues had torsional mechanical properties different from those of osteoporotic cadaveric specimens.
The differences between osteoporotic cadaveric humeri and synthetic osteoporotic bone analogues ranged from profound with complete catastrophic failure after a few cycles to subtler differences in stiffness and strain hardening. These findings suggest that different bone analogue models vary substantially in their torsional mechanical properties and might not be appropriate substitutes for cadaveric bone in biomechanical studies of osteoporotic bone.
由于骨质疏松骨的变异性降低、可用性增加以及使用合成模型的整体便利性提高,对骨质疏松骨的生物力学研究使用了合成模型而不是尸体样本。我们比较了尸体骨质疏松骨与当前可用的合成骨质疏松骨类似物的扭转力学性能。
我们测试了 12 个骨质疏松症尸体肱骨和 6 个每种类型的合成模拟物各 6 个标本。使用 5mm 骨折间隙模型和后路钢板技术,采用 4.5mm 窄 10 孔锁定加压钢板。在 0.3Hz 下,施加 10N·m 的峰值扭矩,进行 1000 次循环。在循环和斜坡加载过程中,使用伺服液压材料测试系统连续采集数据。
在完成 1000 次循环之前,尸体骨的失败率为 17%。有 3 种骨质疏松骨模型的失败率为 100%(P < 0.05),2 种的失败率为 17%,1 种在完成 1000 次循环之前失败率为 0%。与尸体骨模型相比,3 种在循环加载中幸存的合成骨模型的刚度有显著差异(P < 0.05)。骨质疏松骨类似物的扭转力学性能与骨质疏松症尸体标本不同。
骨质疏松症尸体肱骨和合成骨质疏松骨类似物之间的差异范围从在几个循环后完全灾难性失败的显著差异到刚度和应变硬化的细微差异。这些发现表明,不同的骨类似模型在扭转力学性能方面存在显著差异,在骨质疏松骨的生物力学研究中可能不适合替代尸体骨。