4.2 Article

Delayed Fracture Healing in Aged Senescence-Accelerated P6 Mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 30-35

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/08941939.2012.687435

关键词

fracture healing; osteoporosis; SAMP6; mice; age; osteoclasts

类别

资金

  1. AO Research Fund of the AO Foundation [S-08-21H]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Osteoporosis is characterized by poor bone quality. However, it is still controversially discussed whether osteoporosis compromises fracture healing. Herein, we studied whether the course of healing of a femur fracture is affected by osteoporosis or age. Methods: Using the senescence-accelerated osteoporotic mouse, strain P6 (SAMP6), and a closed femur fracture model, we studied the process of fracture healing in 5- and 10-monthold animals, including biomechanical, histomorphometric, and protein biochemical analysis. Results: In five-month-old osteoporotic SAMP6 mice, bending stiffness, callus size, and callus tissue distribution as well as the concentrations of the bone formation marker osteocalcin and the bone resorption markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase form 5b (TRAP) and deoxypyridinoline (DPD) did not differ from that of non-osteoporotic, senescence-resistant, strain 1 (SAMR1) controls. In contrast, femur fractures in 10-month-old SAMP6 mice showed a significantly reduced bending stiffness and an increased callus size compared to fractures in age-matched SAMR1 controls. This indicates a delayed fracture healing in advanced age SAMP6 mice. The delay of fracture healing was associated with higher concentrations of TRAP and DPD. Significant differences in osteocalcin concentrations were not found between SAMP6 animals and SAMR1 controls. Conclusion: In conclusion, the present study indicates that fracture healing in osteoporotic SAMP6 mice is not affected in five-month-old animals, but delayed in animals with an age of 10 months. This is most probably due to the increased osteoclast activity in advanced age SAMP6 animals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据