4.5 Article

Osteoprotegerin ameliorates sciatic nerve crush induced bone loss

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 518-523

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(00)00057-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the ability of osteoprotegerin (OPG) to prevent the local bone resorption caused by sciatic nerve damage. Sixty-five 18-week-old male mice were assigned to one of six groups (n = 10-11/group). A baseline control group was sacrificed on day zero of the 10-day study. The remaining groups were placebo sham operated, placebo nerve crush (Plac NC) operated, 0.1 mg/kg/day OPG + nerve crush (LOW), 0.3 mg/kg/day OPG + nerve crush (MED), and 1.0 mg/kg/day OPG + nerve crush (HI). Nerve crush or sham operations were performed on the right leg. The left leg served as a contralateral. control to the nerve crushed (ipsilateral) leg. The difference in mass between the right and left femur and tibia was examined. Additionally, quantitative histomorphometry was performed on the right and left femur and tibia diaphyses. Nerve crush resulted in a significant loss of bone mass in the ipsilateral side compared to the contralateral side. Bone mass for the ipsilateral bones of the Plac NC group were significantly reduced by 3.8% in the femur and 3.5% in the tibia compared to the contralateral limb. The percent diminution was reduced for OPG treated mice compared to the Plac NC group for both the femur and tibia. In the femur, the percent reduction of ipsilateral bone mass was reduced to 1.0% (LOW), 1.3% (MED) and 1.6% (HI) compared to the contralateral limb. In the tibia, loss of bone mass in the ipsilateral limb was reduced to 1.4% (LOW), 1.4% (MED), and 2.4% (HI) compared to the contralateral. OPG also decreased the amount of tibial endocortical resorption compared to the Plac NC group. In summary, OPG mitigated bone loss caused by damage to the sciatic nerve. (C) 2001 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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