Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Institute of Materials Science and Technology, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria.
Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 11;9(1):5961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42476-4.
Since mechanical testing of bone quality is often delayed following euthanasia, the method of bone storage is of high importance in animal studies. Different storage methods may cause a change in the properties of bone tissue during mechanical testing. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanical effects of two different fixation methods for bone tissue. We hypothesized that there is a difference between the load to failure values between the two groups. The tibias of fifteen 18-week-old female C57BL/6 mice were harvested and randomly allocated to three different groups with varying storage methods: (1) frozen at -80 °C, (2) paraformaldehyde working solution, and (3) native group. A storage time of two weeks prior to testing was chosen for groups 1 and 2. In group 3, referred to as the "native group", bones were immediately tested after the harvesting procedure. The comparison of the mean load to failure of all 3 groups (group 1: 28.7 N ± 6.1 N, group 2: 23.8 N ± 3.8 N and group 3: 23.7 N ± 5.7 N) did not reveal a significant difference. There was also no difference in strength or stiffness. The findings of the present study demonstrate that the two most common storage methods, do not have an influence on the biomechanical properties of murine bone over a two week period.
由于在安乐死后通常会延迟对骨质量的机械测试，因此在动物研究中，骨存储的方法非常重要。不同的存储方法可能会导致在机械测试过程中骨组织的特性发生变化。因此，本研究的目的是研究两种不同的骨组织固定方法对生物力学的影响。我们假设两组之间的破坏负载值存在差异。从 18 周龄的 15 只雌性 C57BL/6 小鼠中采集胫骨，并将其随机分配到三个不同的存储方法组：（1）-80°C 冷冻，（2）多聚甲醛工作溶液，和（3）自然组。选择测试前的两周储存时间用于组 1 和组 2。在第 3 组中，称为“自然组”，在采集程序后立即对骨骼进行测试。对所有 3 组的平均破坏负载进行比较（组 1：28.7 N ± 6.1 N，组 2：23.8 N ± 3.8 N 和组 3：23.7 N ± 5.7 N），未发现有显著差异。强度或刚度也没有差异。本研究的结果表明，在两周的时间内，两种最常见的存储方法不会对鼠骨的生物力学特性产生影响。
