A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MICROCOMPUTED

TOMOGRAPHIC STUDY OF SITE-SPECIFIC

VARIATION IN TRABECULAR
MICROARCHITECTURE IN THE HUMAN
SECOND METACARPAL

Presented by
Irfan Jamil
Mohammad Niamatullah Farooqui
Muhammad Zohaib Zafar Khan
NAME OF JOURNAL
Journal of Anatomy 2008

VOLUME AND PAGE NUMBER

213: 698-705

VANCOUVER STYLE
J. Anat.(2008)213, pp698–705

AUTHORS
Richard Lazenby
Sarah Angus
David Cooper
et al.

www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121496396/articletext?DOI=10...

Accessed on …….
08-07-2010
 PLACE OF RESEARCH

• University of Northern British Columbia,

Prince George, BC, Canada.

• University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada.
 ABSTRACT
Inter- and intra-site variation in trabecular
anatomy using a novel model of
contralateral (left vs right) and ipsilateral
(head vs base) comparisons for the human
second metacarpal in a sample of n = 29
using three-dimensional microcomputed
tomography.
In this study two hypothesis were speculated

1. Metacarpal heads should have a more robust trabecular

architecture than bases within sides reflecting diverse loading
environment at the MCP joint.

2. Due to common occurrence of right handedness within human

populations, these ipsilateral differences between epiphyses will
be larger on the right side than on the left side.
 INTRODUCTION
An ipsi- and contralateral single element model (the human second metacarpal)

1. The relationship of site-specific variation in

functional loading
2. The proximate phenotype of local trabecular
architecture.
 ANATOMY
• The second metacarpal is the largest of four short tubular
bones.

• Anatomically, metacarpals consist of a quadrilateral base,

cortical shaft, neck and ‘cam-shaped’ head.

• Ligamentous attachments bind the bases of each

metacarpal to each other.

• The base of the second metacarpal is further stabilized by

articulating with trapezius, trapezoid .and capitate bones
MATERIALS AND METHODS

PAIRED SECOND METACARPALS

 MALES FEMALES

AGE 20-75 YEARS 17-67 YEARS

MEAN AGE 50.07 YEARS 36.27 YEARS

STANDARD 20.44 12.64

DEVIATION
1. Head and base of each metacarpal
were removed from the Diaphysis

Struers Minitom® slow-speed saw

Cleaned

Ultrasonication
2. Microcomputed tomographic images of
each epiphysis

SkyScan 1072 cone-beam micro-CT scanner

3. Cone-beam algorithm SkyScan Cone

Recon® software

Serial 8-bit 1024 × 1024 pixel image

Sequences were constructed
5. Volume of Interest (VOI) = 5 mm3 were
sampled

each epiphysis

Comprising of 259 images

 4. SkyScan’s proprietary software CTan®.

Data were collected

1.Bone volume fraction (BV/TV)
Volumetric 2.Trabecular number (Tb.N)
3.Trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) Variables
4.Structure model index (SMI) were
5.Trabecular Connectivity (Tb.Pf) assessed
Structural
6.Trabecular Thickness (Tb.Th)
7.Degree of anisotropy (DA).
 Male Female
Variable Head Base Head Base
Right BV/TV 19.10 (7.72) 11.22 (5.06) 19.32 (4.72) 10.19 (2.91)
Tb.Pf 3.96 (3.35) 4.52 (1.67) 2.99 (1.95) 0.27 (0.11)
SMI 0.85 (0.42) 0.88 (0.18) 0.75 (0.28) 0.84 (0.13)
Tb.N 1.21 (0.33) 0.71 (0.23) 1.21 (0.24) 0.65 (0.16)
Tb.Th 0.16 (0.04) 0.15 (0.03) 0.16 (0.03) 0.16 (0.02)
Tb.Sp 0.57 (0.11) 0.87 (0.20) 0.61 (0.11) 0.96 (0.21)
DA 0.23 (0.08) 0.16 (0.07) 0.26 (0.05) 0.18 (0.05)
Left BV/TV 18.55 (7.75) 10.72 (4.27) 17.01 (4.83) 9.91 (3.21)
Tb.Pf 3.85 (3.25) 4.25 (2.00) 3.84 (1.99) 4.38 (1.06)
SMI 0.82 (0.39) 0.82 (0.23) 0.86 (0.26) 0.83 (0.12)
Tb.N 1.19 (0.32) 0.68 (0.20) 1.14 (0.23) 0.63 (0.14)
Tb.Th 0.15 (0.04) 0.16 (0.03) 0.15 (0.03) 0.16 (0.03)
Tb.Sp 0.59 (0.11) 0.98 (0.35) 0.62 (0.10) 0.98 (0.18)
DA 0.24 (0.09) 0.17 (0.08) 0.27 (0.11) 0.19 (0.05)
BV/TV, bone volume fraction (%); Tb.Pf, connectivity (mm–1); SMI, structure model
index; Tb.N, trabecular number (mm–1); Tb.Th, trabecular thickness (mm); Tb.Sp,
trabecular separation (mm); DA, degree of anisotropy.
The ‘global’ null hypothesis between-site differences was
tested using ANCOVA by sex and side with epiphysis as
factor and age as covariate, using Systat 11 with α= 0.05.
 Male Female
Side Variable H – B Effect F P = Cov F P = H – B Effect F P = Cov F P=
Right BV/TV 7.878 9.822 0.004 0.032 0.859 9.126 40.243 0 0.746 0.395

Tb.Pf –0.554 0.302 0.588 0.489 0.491 –1.319 5.923 0.022 2.408 0.132

SMI –0.025 0.041 0.840 0.915 0.348 –0.086 1.341 0.257 5.048 0.033

Tb.N 0.497 21.333 0 0.657 0.425 0.558 55.034 0 0.239 0.629

Tb.Th 0.002 0.018 0.895 2.561 0.122 0.005 0.286 0.597 3.838 0.061

Tb.Sp –0.308 29.019 0 3.660 0.067 –0.355 35.961 0 2.189 0.151

DA 0.070 6.338 0.019 0.014 0.907 0.083 21.561 0 3.088 0.090

Left BV/TV 8.725 10.550 0.003 0.005 0.943 7.103 24.009 0 2.881 0.101

Tb.Pf –0.396 0.149 0.702 0.833 0.370 –0.537 1.019 0.322 6.480 0.017

SMI –0.005 0.002 0.963 1.651 0.211 0.029 0.215 0.646 11.125 0.002

Tb.N 0.505 24.223 0 0.778 0.386 0.504 51.373 0 0.247 0.623

Tb.Th –0.003 0.056 0.815 1.851 0.186 –0.007 0.556 0.462 5.515 0.026

Tb.Sp –0.391 17.777 0 3.094 0.091 –0.364 50.196 0 2.151 0.154

DA 0.072 5.353 0.029 0.191 0.666 0.082 7.115 0.013 2.620 0.117

H – B, head – base; effect, epiphysis; covariate (Cov), age.

BV/TV, bone volume fraction (%); Tb.Pf, connectivity (mm–1); SMI, structure model index;
Tb.N, trabecular number (mm–1); Tb.Th, trabecular thickness (mm); Tb.Sp, trabecular
separation (mm); DA, degree of anisotropy.
Absolute Difference (Means)

Female

Absolute differences between ipsilateral epiphyseal means by side and

sex.
Absolute Difference (Means)

Male

Absolute differences between ipsilateral epiphyseal means by side and

sex.
 RESULTS
1. Compared with bases, metacarpal heads had a
significantly higher bone volume fraction in both left
and right sides, and in males and females alike.

2. The elevated BV/TV in the head was associated with a

significantly greater Tb.N and a concomitant reduction
in Tb.Sp.

3. Tb.Th did not differ among epiphyses.

4. Values for Tb.Pf were invariably lower in the head, indicating a
more well-connected lattice structure.

5. Trabeculae in the metacarpal base were significantly more

isotropic in orientation, with DA values closer to 0.0.

6. Age was a significant covariate only for females, influencing

the SMI in both hands and Tb.Pf and Tb.Th in the left hand.
 DISCUSSION
• Variables related to mass show a distinct difference
between head and base.
• Significance of bone volume fraction.
• Metacarpal head was found to be significantly more
anisotropic relative to the base.
• Variables indicative of structure did not differ significantly
between the head and base.
• Age impacts only structural and not volumetric variables
in females.
 CONCLUSION
• The second metacarpal head reveals amore robust
architecture in keeping with a more diverse mechanical
loading environment.

• Structural measures, such as connectivity, thickness and

relative ‘plateness’ appear to be relatively protected from
variation in mechanical loading.
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
• Sample size was small

• It was presumed that the right

metacarpal would experience a more
diverse loading history as a function of
handedness

• Whether these individuals suffered from

any disorders that may have affected
bone physiology.
 REFERENCES
• Bevill G, Eswaran SK, Gupta A, Papadopoulos P, Keaveny TM (2006) Influence of bone volume fraction and
architecture on computed large-deformation failure mechanisms in human trabecular bone. Bone 39, 1218–1225.
• Bouxsein M, Uchiyama T, Rosen C, et al.(2004) Mapping quantitative trait loci for vertebral trabecular bone
volume fraction and microarchitecture in mice. J Bone Min Res19, 587–599.
• Chen H, Tian X, Liu X, Setterberg R, Li M, Jee W(2008) Alfacalcidol stimulated focal bone formation on the
cancellous surface and increased bone formation on the periosteal surface of the lumbar vertebrae of adult
female rats.Calcif Tissue Int82, 127–136.
• Chin S, Vedder N(2008) MOC-PSSM CME article: metacarpal fractures.Plast Reconstruct Surg121(1 Suppl), 13.
• Dahlberg G(1940)Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students. New York: Interscience Publications.
• Fajardo RJ, Ryan T, Kappelman J (2002) Assessing the accuracy of high-resolution X-ray computed
tomography of primate trabecular bone by comparisons with histological sections. Am J PhysAnthropol118, 1–10.
• Tamai K, Ryu J, An KN, Linscheid RL, Cooney WP, Chao EYS (1988) Three-dimensional geometric analysis
of the metacarpophalangeal joint. J Hand Surg 13A, 521–529.
• Tanck E, Homminga J, Van Lenthe GH, Huiskes R (2001) Increase in bone volume fraction precedes
architectural adaptation in growing bone. Bone 28, 650–654.
• Thomas CDL, Feik SA, Clement JG (2006) Increase in pore area, and not pore density, is the main
determinant in the development of porosity in human cortical bone. J Anat 209, 219–230.
• Tocheri M, Razdan A, Williams R, Marzke M (2005) A 3D quantitative comparison of trapezium and trapezoid
relative articular and non-articular facet areas in modern humans and great apes. J Hum Evol 49, 570–586.
• Ulrich D, van Rietbergen B, Laib A, Rüegsegger P (1999) The ability of three-dimensional structural indices to
reflect mechanical aspects of trabecular bone. Bone 25, 55–60.
• Van Lenthe GH, Stauber M, Muller R (2006) Specimen-specific beam models for fast and accurate prediction
of human trabecular bone mechanical properties. Bone 39, 1182–1189e
QUESTIONS???
THANK YOU