4.3 Article

The effect of age on rat rotator cuff muscle architecture

期刊

JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 1786-1791

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.03.002

关键词

Age; muscle architecture; rotator cuff; shoulder; scaling

资金

  1. NIH [R01 AR057836, R24 HD050837]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Understanding rotator cuff muscle function during disease development and after repair is necessary for preventing degeneration and improving postsurgical outcomes, respectively. The rat is a commonly used rotator cuff animal model; however, unlike humans, rats continue to grow throughout their lifespan, so age-related changes in muscle structure may complicate an understanding of muscle adaptations to injury. Methods: Infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscle mass, fiber length, pennation angle, sarcomere length, and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) were measured in Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 30) with a body mass ranging from 51 to 814 g (approximately 3 weeks to approximately 18 months). Results: Both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus showed a striking conservation of sarcomere length throughout growth. There was linear growth in muscle mass and PCSA, nonlinear growth in muscle length and fiber bundle length, and a linear relationship between humeral head diameter and fiber bundle length, suggesting that muscle fiber length (serial sarcomere number) adjusted according to skeletal dimensions. These muscle growth trajectories allowed sarcomere length to remain nearly constant. Discussion: During the typical rat rotator cuff experimental period (animal mass, 400-600 g), muscle mass will increase by 30%, fiber length will increase by 7%, and PCSA will increase by 27%, but sarcomere lengths are nearly constant. Therefore, these normal growth-induced changes in architecture must be considered when muscle atrophy or fiber shortening is measured after rotator cuff tears in this model. (C) 2014 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

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

4.3
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