Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meagre effects of disuse on the human fibula are not explained by bone size or geometry

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

Abstract

Summary

Fibula response to disuse is unknown; we assessed fibula bone in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients and able-bodied counterparts. Group differences were smaller than in the neighbouring tibia which could not be explained by bone geometry. Differential adaptation of the shank bones may indicate previously unknown mechanoadaptive behaviours of bone.

Introduction

The fibula supports only a small and highly variable proportion of shank compressive load (−8 to +19 %), and little is known about other kinds of stresses. Hence, whilst effects of habitual loading on tibia are well-known, fibula response to disuse is difficult to predict.

Methods

Therefore, we assessed fibular bone strength using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) at 5 % increments from 5 to 90 % distal-proximal tibia length in nine participants with long-term spinal cord injury (SCI; age 39.2 ± 6.2 years, time since injury 17.8 ± 7.4 years), representing a cross-sectional model of long-term disuse and in nine able-bodied counterparts of similar age (39.6 ± 7.8 years), height and mass.

Results

There was no group difference in diaphyseal fibula total bone mineral content (BMC) (P = 0.22, 95 % CIs -7.4 % to -13.4 % and +10.9 % to +19.2 %). Site by group interactions (P < 0.001) revealed 27 and 22 % lower BMC in SCI at 5 and 90 % (epiphyseal) sites only. Cortical bone geometry differed at mid and distal diaphysis, with lower endocortical circumference and greater cortical thickness in SCI than able-bodied participants in this region only (interactions both P < 0.01). Tibia bone strength was also assessed; bone by group interactions showed smaller group differences in fibula than tibia for all bone parameters, with opposing effects on distal diaphysis geometry in the two bones (all Ps < 0.001).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the structure of the fibula diaphysis is not heavily influenced by compressive loading, and only mid and distal diaphysis are influenced by bending and/or torsional loads. The fibula is less influenced by disuse than the tibia, which cannot satisfactorily be explained by differences in bone geometry or relative changes in habitual loading in disuse. Biomechanical study of the shank loading environment may give new information pertaining to factors influencing bone mechanoadaptation.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Funk JR, Rudd RW, Kerrigan JR, Crandall JR (2007) The line of action in the tibia during axial compression of the leg. J Biomech 40:2277–2282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang Q, Whittle M, Cunningham J, Kenwright J (1996) Fibula and its ligaments in load transmission and ankle joint stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res:261–270

  3. Thambyah A, Pereira BP (2006) Mechanical contribution of the fibula to torsion stiffness in the lower extremity. Clin Anat 19:615–620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cointry GR, Nocciolino L, Ireland A, Hall NM, Kriechbaumer A, Ferretti JL, Rittweger J, Capozza RF (2015) Structural differences in cortical shell properties between upper and lower human fibula as described by pQCT serial scans. A biomechanical interpretation. Bone 90:185–194

  5. Alho A, Høiseth A (1991) Bone mass distribution in the lower leg. A quantitative computed tomographic study of 36 individuals. Acta Orthop Scand 62:468–470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Taddei F, Balestri M, Rimondi E, Viceconti M, Manfrini M (2009) Tibia adaptation after fibula harvesting: an in vivo quantitative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2149–2158

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Marchi D, Shaw CN (2011) Variation in fibular robusticity reflects variation in mobility patterns. J Hum Evol 61:609–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pećina M, Ruszkowsky I, Muftić O, Antičević D (1982) The fibula in clinical and experimental evaluation of the theory on functional adaptation of bone. Collegium Antropologicum 6:197–206

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coupaud S, McLean AN, Purcell M, Fraser MH, Allan DB (2015) Decreases in bone mineral density at cortical and trabecular sites in the tibia and femur during the first year of spinal cord injury. Bone 74:69–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eser P, Frotzler A, Zehnder Y, Wick L, Knecht H, Denoth J, Schiessl H (2004) Relationship between the duration of paralysis and bone structure: a pQCT study of spinal cord injured individuals. Bone 34:869–880

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rittweger J, Goosey-Tolfrey VL, Cointry G, Ferretti JL (2010) Structural analysis of the human tibia in men with spinal cord injury by tomographic (pQCT) serial scans. Bone 47:511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dudley-Javoroski S, Shields RK (2012) Regional cortical and trabecular bone loss after spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 49:1365–1376

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rittweger J, Frost HM, Schiessl H, Ohshima H, Alkner B, Tesch P, Felsenberg D (2005) Muscle atrophy and bone loss after 90 days’ bed rest and the effects of flywheel resistive exercise and pamidronate: results from the LTBR study. Bone 36:1019–1029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kern DS, Semmler JG, Enoka RM (2001) Long-term activity in upper- and lower-limb muscles of humans. J Appl Physiol 91:2224–2232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rittweger J, Michaelis I, Giehl M, Wüsecke P, Felsenberg D (2004) Adjusting for the partial volume effect in cortical bone analyses of pQCT images. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 4:436–441

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ward KA, Adams JE, Hangartner TN (2005) Recommendations for thresholds for cortical bone geometry and density measurement by peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Calcif Tissue Int 77:275–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hangartner TN, Gilsanz V (1996) Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 11:1518–1525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rittweger J, Beller G, Ehrig J et al (2000) Bone-muscle strength indices for the human lower leg. Bone 27:319–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rittweger J, Simunic B, Bilancio G, De Santo NG, Cirillo M, Biolo G, Pisot R, Eiken O, Mekjavic IB, Narici M (2009) Bone loss in the lower leg during 35 days of bed rest is predominantly from the cortical compartment. Bone 44:612–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rantalainen T, Duckham RL, Suominen H, Heinonen A, Alén M, Korhonen MT (2014) Tibial and fibular mid-shaft bone traits in young and older sprinters and non-athletic men. Calcif Tissue Int 95:132–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rantalainen T, Nikander R, Heinonen A, Suominen H, Sievänen H (2010) Direction-specific diaphyseal geometry and mineral mass distribution of tibia and fibula: a pQCT study of female athletes representing different exercise loading types. Calcif Tissue Int 86:447–454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parfitt AM (2002) Misconceptions (2): turnover is always higher in cancellous than in cortical bone. Bone 30:807–809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Noble BS, Peet N, Stevens HY, Brabbs A, Mosley JR, Reilly GC, Reeve J, Skerry TM, Lanyon LE (2003) Mechanical loading: biphasic osteocyte survival and targeting of osteoclasts for bone destruction in rat cortical bone. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 284:C934–C943

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodríguez JI, Palacios J, García-Alix A, Pastor I, Paniagua R (1988) Effects of immobilization on fetal bone development. A morphometric study in newborns with congenital neuromuscular diseases with intrauterine onset. Calcif Tissue Int 43:335–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Biggin A, Briody JN, Ramjan KA, Middleton A, Waugh MC, Munns CF (2013) Evaluation of bone mineral density and morphology using pQCT in children after spinal cord injury. Dev Neurorehabil 16:391–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cullen DM, Smith RT, Akhter MP (2001) Bone-loading response varies with strain magnitude and cycle number. J Appl Physiol 91:1971–1976

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Turner CH, Owan I, Takano Y (1995) Mechanotransduction in bone: role of strain rate. Am J Phys 269:E438–E442

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Warden SJ, Mantila Roosa SM, Kersh ME, Hurd AL, Fleisig GS, Pandy MG, Fuchs RK (2014) Physical activity when young provides lifelong benefits to cortical bone size and strength in men. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(14):5337–5342

  30. Ireland A, Maden-Wilkinson T, Ganse B, Degens H, Rittweger J (2014) Effects of age and starting age upon side asymmetry in the arms of veteran tennis players: a cross-sectional study. Osteoporos Int 25:1389–1400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vatsa A, Breuls RG, Semeins CM, Salmon PL, Smit TH, Klein-Nulend J (2008) Osteocyte morphology in fibula and calvaria—is there a role for mechanosensing? Bone 43:452–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Healthcare Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, John Dalton Building, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD, UK

    A. Ireland

  2. Center of P-Ca Metabolism Studies (CEMFoC), National University of Rosario, Rosario, Argentina

    R. F. Capozza, G. R. Cointry, L. Nocciolino & J. L. Ferretti

  3. Division of Space Physiology, Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center, Cologne, Germany

    J. Rittweger

  4. Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    J. Rittweger

Authors
  1. A. Ireland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. F. Capozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. R. Cointry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Nocciolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. L. Ferretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Rittweger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Ireland.

Ethics declarations

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Manchester Metropolitan University, and all participants gave written informed consent prior to participation.

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ireland, A., Capozza, R.F., Cointry, G.R. et al. Meagre effects of disuse on the human fibula are not explained by bone size or geometry. Osteoporos Int 28, 633–641 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3779-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-016-3779-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation