Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 451–460 | Cite as

A longitudinal comparison of appendicular bone growth and markers of strength through adolescence in a South African cohort using radiogrammetry and pQCT

  • A. MaganEmail author
  • L. K. Micklesfield
  • L. H. Nyati
  • S. A. Norris
  • J. M. Pettifor
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

To compare growth patterns and strength of weight- and non-weight-bearing bones longitudinally. Irrespective of sex and ethnicity, metacarpal growth was similar to that of the non-weight-bearing radius but differed from that of the weight-bearing tibia. Weight- and non-weight-bearing bones have different growth and strength patterns.

Introduction

Functional loading modulates bone size and strength.

Methods

To compare growth patterns and strength of weight- and non-weight-bearing bones longitudinally, we performed manual radiogrammetry of the second metacarpal on hand-wrist radiographs and measured peripheral quantitative computed tomography images of the radius (65%) and tibia (38% and 65%), annually on 372 black and 152 white South African participants (ages 12–20 years). We aligned participants by age from peak metacarpal length velocity. We assessed bone width (BW, mm); cortical thickness (CT, mm); medullary width (MW, mm); stress-strain index (SSI, mm3); and muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA, mm2).

Results

From 12 to 20 years, the associations between metacarpal measures (BW, CT and SSI) and MCSA at the radius (males R2 = 0.33–0.45; females R2 = 0.12–0.20) were stronger than the tibia (males R2 = 0.01–0.11; females R2 = 0.007–0.04). In all groups, radial BW, CT and MW accrual rates were similar to those of the metacarpal, except in white females who had lower radial CT (0.04 mm/year) and greater radial MW (0.06 mm/year) accrual. In all groups, except for CT in white males, tibial BW and CT accrual rates were greater than at the metacarpal. Tibial MW (0.29–0.35 mm/year) increased significantly relative to metacarpal MW (− 0.07 to 0.06 mm/year) in males only. In all groups, except white females, SSI increased in each bone.

Conclusion

Irrespective of sex and ethnicity, metacarpal growth was similar to that of the non-weight-bearing radius but differed from that of the weight-bearing tibia. The local and systemic factors influencing site-specific differences require further investigation.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Functional loading Growth patterns Muscle pQCT Radiogrammetry Stress-strain index 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The contribution of the Bone Health staff, participants and caregivers is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Dr. Simon Schoenbuchner for assisting with the preparation of the pQCT data.

Funding

The Bone Health Cohort was supported financially by the Wellcome Trust (UK) and the South African Medical Research Council. JMP received funding from the National Research Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary material

198_2018_4761_Fig1_ESM.png (26 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1

Participant recruitment (N) and the number of participants (n) aged between 12 and 20 years with their respective number of observations (PNG 26 kb)

198_2018_4761_MOESM1_ESM.tif (510 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 510 kb)
198_2018_4761_Fig2_ESM.png (246 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2

Metacarpal stress-strain index in relation to radial muscle cross-sectional area in black and white females and males (PNG 246 kb)

198_2018_4761_MOESM2_ESM.tif (1.7 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 1784 kb)
198_2018_4761_Fig3_ESM.png (253 kb)
Supplementary Figure 3

Metacarpal stress-strain index in relation to tibial muscle cross-sectional area in black and white females and males (PNG 252 kb)

198_2018_4761_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.8 mb)
High Resolution Image (TIF 1854 kb)
198_2018_4761_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (442 kb)
Supplementary Figure 4 Mixed model growth curves of metacarpal, radial and tibial bone width against years from peak metacarpal length velocity in black and white females and males (PDF 442 kb)
198_2018_4761_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (441 kb)
Supplementary Figure 5 Mixed model growth curves of metacarpal, radial and tibial cortical thickness against years from peak metacarpal length velocity in black and white females and males (PDF 440 kb)
198_2018_4761_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (440 kb)
Supplementary Figure 6 Mixed model growth curves of metacarpal, radial and tibial medullary width against years from peak metacarpal length velocity in black and white females and males (PDF 439 kb)
198_2018_4761_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (449 kb)
Supplementary Figure 7 Mixed model growth curves of metacarpal, radial and tibial stress-strain index against years from peak metacarpal length velocity in black and white females and males (PDF 448 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jarvinen TL, Sievanen H, Jokihaara J, Einhorn TA (2005) Revival of bone strength: the bottom line. J Bone Miner Res 20:717–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schlecht SH, Bigelow EM, Jepsen KJ (2015) How does bone strength compare across sex, site, and ethnicity? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:2540–2547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garn S (1970) The earlier gain and later loss of cortical bone. In: Thomas CC (ed) Nutritional Perspectives. Springfield, IL p 3–120Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirmani S, Christen D, van Lenthe GH, Fischer PR, Bouxsein ML, McCready LK, Melton LJ III, Riggs BL, Amin S, Müller R, Khosla S (2009) Bone structure at the distal radius during adolescent growth. J Bone Miner Res 24:1033–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gabel L, Nettlefold L, Brasher PM, Moore SA, Ahamed Y, Macdonald HM, McKay HA (2015) Reexamining the surfaces of bone in boys and girls during adolescent growth: a 12-year mixed longitudinal pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 30:2158–2167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Micklesfield LK, Norris SA, Pettifor JM (2011) Determinants of bone size and strength in 13-year-old south African children: the influence of ethnicity, sex and pubertal maturation. Bone 48:777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magan A, Nyati LH, Micklesfield LK, Norris SA, Pettifor JM (2017) Metacarpal growth during adolescence in a longitudinal South African cohort. J Bone Miner Res 32:1926–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schoenbuchner SM, Pettifor JM, Norris SA, Micklesfield LK, Prentice A, Ward KA (2017) Ethnic differences in peripheral skeletal development among urban South African adolescents: a ten-year longitudinal pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 32:2355–2366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meiring RM, Micklesfield LK, McVeigh JA (2016) The effect of loading and ethnicity on annual changes in cortical bone of the radius and tibia in pre-pubertal children. Ann Hum Biol 43:520–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schoenau E, Frost HM (2002) The “muscle-bone unit” in children and adolescents. Calcif Tissue Int 70:405–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruff C (2003) Growth in bone strength, body size, and muscle size in a juvenile longitudinal sample. Bone 33:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoenau E (2004) The peak bone mass concept: is it still relevant? Pediatr Nephrol 19:825–831Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 17:1095–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pang MY, Ashe MC, Eng JJ (2007) Muscle weakness, spasticity and disuse contribute to demineralization and geometric changes in the radius following chronic stroke. Osteoporos Int 18:1243–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pang MY, Ashe MC, Eng JJ (2008) Tibial bone geometry in chronic stroke patients: influence of sex, cardiovascular health, and muscle mass. J Bone Miner Res 23:1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fox KM, Kimura S, Powell-Threets K, Plato CC (1995) Radial and ulnar cortical thickness of the second metacarpal. J Bone Miner Res 10:1930–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cole JH, van der Meulen MC (2011) Whole bone mechanics and bone quality. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2139–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barnett E, Nordin BE (1960) The radiological diagnosis of osteoporosis: a new approach. Clin Radiol 11:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Binkley TL, Berry R, Specker BL (2008) Methods for measurement of pediatric bone. Rev Endocr Metab Disord 9:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kontulainen SA, Johnston JD, Liu D, Leung C, Oxland TR, McKay HA (2008) Strength indices from pQCT imaging predict up to 85% of variance in bone failure properties at tibial epiphysis and diaphysis. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 8:401–409Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richter L, Norris S, Pettifor J, Yach D, Cameron N (2007) Cohort profile: Mandela’s children: the 1990 birth to twenty study in South Africa. Int J Epidemiol 36:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    May A, Pettifor JM, Norris SA, Ramsay M, Lombard Z (2013) Genetic factors influencing bone mineral content in a black south African population. J Bone Miner Metab 31:708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cole TJ, Donaldson MD, Ben-Shlomo Y (2010) SITAR—a useful instrument for growth curve analysis. Int J Epidemiol 39:1558–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tanner JM (2001) Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW3 method). W.B. Saunders, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cointry GR, Ferretti JL, Reina PS, Nocciolino LM, Rittweger J, Capozza RF (2014) The pQCT ‘Bone Strength Indices’ (BSIs, SSI). Relative mechanical impact and diagnostic value of the indicators of bone tissue and design quality employed in their calculation in healthy men and pre- and post-menopausal women. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 14:29–40Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schoenau E, Neu CM, Rauch F, Manz F (2001) The development of bone strength at the proximal radius during childhood and adolescence. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:613–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eser P, Aeberli D, Widmer J, Moller B, Villiger PM (2011) Abnormal bone geometry at the metacarpal bone shaft of rheumatoid arthritis patients with maintained muscle-bone relationship. Arthritis Care Res 63:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhu K, Briffa K, Smith A, Mountain J, Briggs AM, Lye S, Pennell C, Straker L, Walsh JP (2014) Gender differences in the relationships between lean body mass, fat mass and peak bone mass in young adults. Osteoporos Int 25:1563–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nieves JW, Formica C, Ruffing J, Zion M, Garrett P, Lindsay R, Cosman F (2005) Males have larger skeletal size and bone mass than females, despite comparable body size. J Bone Miner Res 20:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rauch F, Bailey DA, Baxter-Jones A, Mirwald R, Faulkner R (2004) The 'muscle-bone unit' during the pubertal growth spurt. Bone 34:771–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sumner DR, Andriacchi TP (1996) Adaptation to differential loading: comparison of growth-related changes in cross-sectional properties of the human femur and humerus. Bone 19:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schoenau E, Neu CM, Mokov E, Wassmer G, Manz F (2000) Influence of puberty on muscle area and cortical bone area of the forearm in boys and girls. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:1095–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neu CM, Rauch F, Manz F, Schoenau E (2001) Modeling of cross-sectional bone size, mass and geometry at the proximal radius: a study of normal bone development using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 12:538–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frost HM (2003) Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 275:1081–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bailey DA, Wedge JH, McCulloch RG, Martin AD, Bernhardson SC (1989) Epidemiology of fractures of the distal end of the radius in children as associated with growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:1225–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nishiyama KK, Macdonald HM, Moore SA, Fung T, Boyd SK, McKay HA (2012) Cortical porosity is higher in boys compared with girls at the distal radius and distal tibia during pubertal growth: an HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 27:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Turner CH (2002) Biomechanics of bone: determinants of skeletal fragility and bone quality. Osteoporos Int 13:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thandrayen K, Norris SA, Pettifor JM (2009) Fracture rates in urban South African children of different ethnic origins: the birth to twenty cohort. Osteoporos Int 20:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frisancho AR, Garn SM, Ascoli W (1970) Subperiosteal and endosteal bone apposition during adolescence. Hum Biol 42:639–664Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martin DD, Heckmann C, Jenni OG, Ranke MB, Binder G, Thodberg HH (2011) Metacarpal thickness, width, length and medullary diameter in children—reference curves from the first Zurich longitudinal study. Osteoporos Int 22:1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gabel L, Macdonald HM, McKay HA (2017) Sex differences and growth-related adaptations in bone microarchitecture, geometry, density, and strength from childhood to early adulthood: a mixed longitudinal HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 32:250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cooper C, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Bishop N, van Staa TP (2004) Epidemiology of childhood fractures in Britain: a study using the general practice research database. J Bone Miner Res 19:1976–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Shaffer RA, Betsinger K, Trone DW, Brodine SK (2000) Stress fracture in military recruits: gender differences in muscle and bone susceptibility factors. Bone 27:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gabel L, Macdonald HM, McKay HA (2016) Reply to: challenges in the acquisition and analysis of bone microstructure during growth. J Bone Miner Res 31:2242–2243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tan VP, Macdonald HM, Kim S, Nettlefold L, Gabel L, Ashe MC, McKay HA (2014) Influence of physical activity on bone strength in children and adolescents: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 29:2161–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South African MRC/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations