4.6 Article

Trabecular bone histomorphometry in humans with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Journal

BONE
Volume 50, Issue 1, Pages 91-96

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2011.09.055

Keywords

Histomorphometry; Micro-CT; Diabetes; Trabeculae; Bone

Funding

  1. NIH [K23 AR055542]
  2. Health Future Foundation of Creighton University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) have markedly increased risk of fracture, but little is known about abnormalities in bone microarchitecture or remodeling properties that might give insight into the pathogenesis of skeletal fragility in these patients. We report here a case-control study comparing bone histomorphometric and micro-CT results from iliac biopsies in 18 otherwise healthy subjects with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus with those from healthy age- and sex-matched non-diabetic control subjects. Five of the diabetics had histories of low-trauma fracture. Transilial bone biopsies were obtained after tetracycline labeling. The biopsy specimens were fixed, embedded, and scanned using a desktop mu CT at 16 pm resolution. They were then sectioned and quantitative histomorphometry was performed as previously described by Recker et at [1]. Two sections, > 250 mu m apart, were read from the central part of each biopsy. Overall there were no significant differences between diabetics and controls in histomorphometric or micro-CT measurements. However, fracturing diabetics had structural and dynamic trends different from nonfracturing diabetics by both methods of analysis. In conclusion, Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus does not result in abnormalities in bone histomorphometric or micro-CT variables in the absence of manifest complications from the diabetes. However, diabetics suffering fractures may have defects ill their skeletal microarchitecture that may underlie the presence of excess skeletal fragility. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available