Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 1999 Jan;52(1):23–28. doi: 10.1136/jcp.52.1.23

Differential patterns of altered bone formation in different bone compartments in established osteoporosis.

R J Byers 1, J Denton 1, J A Hoyland 1, A J Freemont 1
PMCID: PMC501003  PMID: 10343608

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the level of bone formation in the different bone compartments in cases of established osteoporosis, as previous work has concentrated on trabecular bone alone. METHODS: Bone formation rates were measured histomorphometrically, in the periosteal (P), cortical (C), subcortical (SC), and trabecular (T) compartments in iliac crest biopsies from 159 patients with established osteoporosis. The values were standardised using age and sex matched control data and patterns of differential change determined by analysis of parametric status (increased, normal, reduced). RESULTS: Mean bone formation was reduced in all four compartments. This was more marked (4.4/4.1 standard deviations below the mean in C/T, v 2.3/0.9 in P/SC) and more frequent (reduced in 81.5%/78.3% in T/C, v 43.3%/44% in P/SC) in the trabecular and cortical compartments than in the periosteal or subcortical bone. Parametric status was equal in trabecular and cortical bone in 85.4% of cases, and in periosteal and subcortical bone in 65.7%, but in all four compartments in only 35.1%, indicating differential alteration of bone formation in the two sets of compartments (T/C v P/SC). CONCLUSIONS: Altered trabecular bone formation is important in osteoporosis, but there are differential patterns of alteration in the other three compartments, emphasising the presence of different microenvironments in bone; thus the effect on the cortical compartment was similar to that on the trabecular, while the subcortical and periosteal compartments also showed linkage. The linkage between the two pairs was divergent, indicating different control of bone formation, with resultant different patterns of perturbation in osteoporosis.

Full text

PDF
23

Images in this article

23Image
on p.23
24Image
on p.24

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Benz D. J., Haussler M. R., Komm B. S. Estrogen binding and estrogenic responses in normal human osteoblast-like cells. J Bone Miner Res. 1991 Jun;6(6):531–541. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650060603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Compston J. E., Mellish R. W., Croucher P., Newcombe R., Garrahan N. J. Structural mechanisms of trabecular bone loss in man. Bone Miner. 1989 Jul;6(3):339–350. doi: 10.1016/0169-6009(89)90039-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ellis H. A., Peart K. M. Quantitative observations on mineralized and non-mineralized bone in the iliac crest. J Clin Pathol. 1972 Apr;25(4):277–286. doi: 10.1136/jcp.25.4.277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hernández E. R., Revilla M., Seco-Durban C., Villa L. F., Cortés J., Rico H. Heterogeneity of trabecular and cortical postmenopausal bone loss: a longitudinal study with pQCT. Bone. 1997 Mar;20(3):283–287. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(96)00362-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jee W. S., Ma Y. F. The in vivo anabolic actions of prostaglandins in bone. Bone. 1997 Oct;21(4):297–304. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(97)00147-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mundy G. R. No bones about fluoride. Nat Med. 1995 Nov;1(11):1130–1131. doi: 10.1038/nm1195-1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ott S. M. Bone mass measurements: reasons to be cautious. BMJ. 1994 Apr 9;308(6934):931–932. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6934.931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Parfitt A. M., Drezner M. K., Glorieux F. H., Kanis J. A., Malluche H., Meunier P. J., Ott S. M., Recker R. R. Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee. J Bone Miner Res. 1987 Dec;2(6):595–610. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.5650020617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Parfitt A. M., Mathews C. H., Villanueva A. R., Kleerekoper M., Frame B., Rao D. S. Relationships between surface, volume, and thickness of iliac trabecular bone in aging and in osteoporosis. Implications for the microanatomic and cellular mechanisms of bone loss. J Clin Invest. 1983 Oct;72(4):1396–1409. doi: 10.1172/JCI111096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Peel N., Eastell R. ABC of rheumatology. Osteoporosis. BMJ. 1995 Apr 15;310(6985):989–992. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6985.989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rehman M. T., Hoyland J. A., Denton J., Freemont A. J. Histomorphometric classification of postmenopausal osteoporosis: implications for the management of osteoporosis. J Clin Pathol. 1995 Mar;48(3):229–235. doi: 10.1136/jcp.48.3.229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES